> Overachiever! > Why would you not store the sources? Because I'm picturing some of these packages being actively developed elsewhere (e.g. dorpbear-akaros).
> You are describing what is that distributions do (source packages contain the > tar.gz of the original source, plus distro patches), but they do store the > tar.gz. > Also, what about in-tree apps and libs? We could keep some in there with the nice one-line compiling, but it's not necessarily appropriate for everything. > Moreover, I find it nice that there is a common make machinery, which emits a > consistent output while building. I agree. I am the one who wrote it that way :) > If every package implements its own make system, this is lost. > IMHO the build configuration for packages should be declaring, per target: > > 1) Target type (exe, lib, so, ...) > 2) The files to build (with possible "glob" spec which resorts to the actual > *.c,*.S,...) > 3) CFLAGS options. Global, with possible per-file override. > 4) LDFLAGS > 5) What to install and where I agree, except if we want to start porting over a wide variety of packages, it's intractable to port all of their makefiles to follow this pattern. Standardizing on a way to get them installed in kfs (or even through a 9p mount point) is important though. > BTW, Busybox is not a very nice example, as even if there is nothing new to > build, it does a bunch of things. Sure, but it will always do that unless we change something in the busybox makefile itself (which isn't unreasonable). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Akaros" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
