On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Paul Mundt wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:28:10AM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote: >> > If you opt to cross-compile, having to deal with those >> > sorts of things is the price you pay. >> >> >> If the build system derives from autoconf, then a hacked-up config.cache (or >> equivalent command-line args) often solves problems for me. Just give the >> cache >> the answers that it would otherwise have to get by running code on the target >> machine. >> >> That's how emdebian is doing a bunch of their stuff, and I have to admit >> that it >> works pretty darned well. It's also handy for configuration management, >> since >> the cache file itself is plaintext and therefore >> svn/git/bzr/cvs/...-friendly. > > Yes, that's the easy case. It's things like perl that are the corner > cases, and my objection comes from the fact that people think we ought to > not have the kernel depend on perl rather than just fixing the package > itself. Autoconf/libtool damage is an entirely different problem :-)
of the core packages, perl and openssl tend to be heavily damaged. openssl because it depends on perl instead of a real build system. -mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
