CROSS_COMPILE
Rob Landley
rob at landley.net
Sun Jul 23 14:11:09 PDT 2006
On Wednesday 19 July 2006 6:12 pm, Paul Fox wrote:
> rob wrote:
> > On Monday 17 July 2006 11:27 am, Paul Fox wrote:
> ...
> > > but mostly i think that
> > > a) the .config.mak file should not be a hidden file, and
> >
> > 1) It shouldn't be a _required_ file, which it isn't.
>
> i agree it shouldn't be required.
>
> > 2) It's named after .config
>
> why? it serves a different purpose. it's a file that the
> user is expected to edit directly, whereas .config is created
> by a program, and user-edited changes can often be lost.
This is a program created by the users. I don't really care if it's called
harvey_the_blue_dinosaur. However, I'm not interested in shipping an empty
one.
> sure. i'm just saying that if it a) weren't hidden,
Since it doesn't exist on most systems, why does the hidden non-hidden status
matter? You won't see it if it isn't there.
> and b) pre-existed in the directory structure,
No.
> with some commented lines
> making it obvious how to do common things, like set a
> cross-compiler, then it would make many users' lives easier.
I set the cross compiler on the command line. Do I give them a wrapper script
to show them how to set the cross compiler on the command line?
> look at it another way. this question is bound to come up again,
> now that cross-compiler option is gone from the menus.
So it needs to be in the FAQ.
We're now doing it the way the linux kernel does it. The .config.mak is a
bonus on top of that because there was a request for the feature. I can
remove it if it causes too much confusion.
> wouldn't
> it be nice if the answer was a simple "read and edit config.mak"?
And then we start getting email about "where do I switch on modprobe in
config.mak?" if it's the only visible config file. Or "I tried ./config.mak;
make; make install and it didn't work, how do I avoid reading the FAQ?"
> paul
Rob
--
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.
More information about the busybox
mailing list