[Buildroot] Where did "project name" go?

[Buildroot] Where did "project name" go?

[Joachim Pihl]

There is no longer an option "Project name" under target options. Why was  
this removed for 2009.11? It seems to me that some essential functionality  
is lost due to this when you target multiple platforms. It seems to me  
that I have to run make distclean, then make xconfig, when switching  
target configurations for the next target to build cleanly.

-- 
Joachim Pihl
Senior R&D Engineer
Nevion Europe

Tel: +47 33 48 94 66
Fax: +47 33 48 99 98
Mobile: +47 91 33 98 91
jpihl at nevion.com
www.nevion.com

------------------------------------------------------
The Global Video Transport Leader
------------------------------------------------------

[Buildroot] Where did "project name" go?

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Joachim" == Joachim Pihl <jpihl@nevion.com> writes:

Hi,

 Joachim> There is no longer an option "Project name" under target
 Joachim> options. Why was this removed for 2009.11? It seems to me that
 Joachim> some essential functionality is lost due to this when you
 Joachim> target multiple platforms. It seems to me that I have to run
 Joachim> make distclean, then make xconfig, when switching target
 Joachim> configurations for the next target to build cleanly.

Are you refererring to the project_build_<arch>/<project> stuff, that
could be used to build variants of a given arch/platform? That was
removed as part of the cleanup work, as it's a fairly specialized setup
and it added a lot of confusion / complexity to the system.

You can use an external toolchain to atleast not need to rebuild the
toolchain (typically the slowest thing to build).

Notice that you can use the O=<path> make argument to put the output
files somewhere else than ouput, which can be handy when you build for
several boards from the same tree.

See
http://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=3b2a803d2842e45a28b58afde6835dc40edb4c52
for more details.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] Where did "project name" go?

[Joachim Pihl]

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:33:12 +0100, Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@uclibc.org>  
wrote:

> Are you refererring to the project_build_<arch>/<project> stuff, that
> could be used to build variants of a given arch/platform? That was
> removed as part of the cleanup work, as it's a fairly specialized setup
> and it added a lot of confusion / complexity to the system.

That is the part I was referring to. It does make building the same system  
for multiple targets easy (from a user perspective), though, and that is  
now lost. I guess I'm just not the average user.

> You can use an external toolchain to atleast not need to rebuild the
> toolchain (typically the slowest thing to build).
>
> Notice that you can use the O=<path> make argument to put the output
> files somewhere else than ouput, which can be handy when you build for
> several boards from the same tree.
>
> See
> http://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=3b2a803d2842e45a28b58afde6835dc40edb4c52
> for more details.
>

Will look into it.

-- 
Joachim Pihl
Senior R&D Engineer
Nevion Europe

Tel: +47 33 48 94 66
Fax: +47 33 48 99 98
Mobile: +47 91 33 98 91
jpihl at nevion.com
www.nevion.com

------------------------------------------------------
The Global Video Transport Leader
------------------------------------------------------

[Buildroot] Where did "project name" go?

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Le Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:07:56 +0100,
Joachim Pihl <jpihl@nevion.com> a ?crit :

> That is the part I was referring to. It does make building the same
> system for multiple targets easy (from a user perspective), though,
> and that is now lost. I guess I'm just not the average user.

The solution for this, as mentionned by Peter, is to build out-of-tree
using O=/path/to/output/directory.

Then you can easily switch between several projects without problem.
They share the same Buildroot source code, but they have different
configurations and different output directories.

The old "project" stuff was just duplicating this feature. We had to
make a choice between both, and the choice of O= was the one that
allowed to make simplifications in Buildroot that make it much easier
to use for less advanced users.

Don't hesitate to ask if you have any question or find any limitation
with the O= scheme.

Sincerly,

Thomas.
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers and embedded Linux development,
consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com