From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Enrico Weigelt Subject: Re: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:11:48 +0200 Message-ID: <20080616051147.GD32139@nibiru.local> References: <1209577322.25560.402.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <200806122025.54791.rob@landley.net> <8bd0f97a0806121829o6138cb30se025fa3c29cdd1a8@mail.gmail.com> <200806130830.52734.neundorf@eit.uni-kl.de> <20080613185157.GT13599@pengutronix.de> <20080613222523.GA28805@shareable.org> <20080613231932.GW13599@pengutronix.de> <20080614000749.GA30652@shareable.org> Reply-To: weigelt@metux.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080614000749.GA30652@shareable.org> Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org * Jamie Lokier schrieb: > Media players with lots of optional formats and drivers are another. > (They also have considerable problems with their Autoconf in my > experience). You probably mean their hand-written ./configure script, which is intentionally incompatible w/ autoconf ("this is not autoconf" as primary directive" ;-P) ... I guess we've got the same one in mind ;-) > Reality is that Kconfig front end to autotools does work - as you've > proved. It's a good idea. :-) Now, we just need an autoconf-alike frontend for Kconfig ;-) > Most packages need lots of additional libraries installed - and the > development versions of those libraries, for that matter. Too often > the right development version - not too recent, not too old. > With the wrong versions, there are surprises. But that's not the problem of autoconf or any other buildsystem, just bad engineering (often on both sides). > You said about too many user-selectable options. Many large packages > _check_ for many installed libraries. Get them wrong, and you have > the same problems of untested combinations. It even gets worse when they silently enable certain features on presence/absence of some lib. That's btw one of the reasons why sysroot is an primary constraint for me, even when building for the platform+arch. > Have you felt uncomfortable shipping a package that does use Autoconf, > Automake and Libtool, knowing that the scripts generated by those > tools are huge compared with the entire source of your package? Yeah, that's one of those things in autotools I never understood: why isn't there just one function for each type of check/action, which is just called with the right params ? cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------