This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.

See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: uclib support for crosstools forward ported to 0.28-rc37


On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 12:46:01AM -0700, Carl Miller wrote:
> > > If you want to freshen up the gcc/binutils patches for newer
> > > versions than I worked with, you might see if the uClibc project
> > > has the appropriate patches available over CVSWeb.  Start here:
> > > 
> > > http://www.uclibc.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/buildroot/sources/
> > > 
> > > and dig into <tool>/<version>/Attic    There's some good stuff
> > > there.
> > 
> > In the Attic? That's a strange place for placing patches. Why are they
> > being wiped off the buildroot?
> 
> Dunno that they are.  I'm not sure exactly how buildroot uses those
> sources/<tool>/<version> directory.  It could be that "Attic" is
> considered a place to store things that are theoretically needed
> once, functioning similarly to the patches directory of crosstool.

Attic is a folder reserved by CVS for files wiped from the
workdir. E.g. files found in the 'Attic' are deleted files kept only
for version control purposes.

> > I already searched for something corresponding to the separate build
> > vs src dir hierarchy (like the Makefile relocate patch), but this
> > seems not to have been addressed within uClibc.
> 
> No, it has not, and as far as I can tell, they do not intend to address
> it in the foreseeable future.  Building outside of the source directory
> is not important to them.  My makefiles-relocate patch was rejected for
> two reasons, being for an old version (easy enough to fix once I can
> find the time), and requiring PERL.  Some of the uClibc team consider
> it important to be able to rebuild the library on a minimal uClibc-
> hosted system.  PERL is currently very difficult to compile for a
> minimal uClibc-hosted system (primarily because PERL is currently dang
> near impossible to cross-compile), so they do not consider PERL as
> acceptable to put on the "required tools" list.

Hm, would a VPATH approach perhaps work? The Makefiles do look simple
enough. I'm going to test this on 0.9.23.

> I asked if I could rewrite the relocate script such that it didn't use
> PERL, and used only acceptable "required tools" (and made the
> corresponding Makefiles patch apply cleanly to current CVS), might the
> patch then be accepted.  I never got an answer to that question.  So
> my take is, let's get the Makefiles portion of the patch up to date,
> and have crosstool use that with the current relocate (I've never heard
> a crosstool user complain about needing PERL).  Any thought of
> rewriting relocate to make it amenable to inclusion in uClibc can come,
> time and will permitting, after full uClibc support is in crosstool,
> and well thrashed out.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]