On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 10:31:17PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > > I have played a bit with the SDK thingy, and i think the best way to > > handle this is to create a sdk tarball that other packages can then > > uncompress if needed. Does this make sense, or do you (and Branden) > > prefer another solution. > > Fair enough, doesn't sound too bad an idea. I'll investigate exactly how > everything works first before giving a final answer, though, so don't > take this as gospel.
Mmm, i have been thinking more about this. The current 4.3.0 SDK uses hardcoded path to build, which is not all that nice. I will see if it is easy to change that, and make sure that the next release has something more flexible, which it will assuredly have but will not be helpfull for us right now. So we can either ship it as a tarball or as an unpacked tree, which is easier. Also, since the paths are hardcoded, it is a bit difficult to have a package which builds in it, which is something the autobuilders will not like, so maybe something akin to the module target in make-kpkg would be a better idea. Friendly, Sven Luther
