On Sunday 15 June 2008 23:38:12 Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > Did you try my FWL project? :)
> >
> > http://landley.net/code/firmware
>
> hmm, doesnt look like supporting sysroot ...
It doesn't use sysroot. It makes the compiler relocatable using an update
* Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Did you try my FWL project? :)
>
> http://landley.net/code/firmware
hmm, doesnt look like supporting sysroot ...
cu
--
-
Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service - http://www.metux
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>>
>> I have been following "Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)" and
>> felt like asking that is there one good way to get a cross compiler
>> work. I tried buildroot, scratchb
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Bill Traynor wrote:
Maybe I'm being dense, but what's specifically wrong with the current
toolchain universe?
Back in ye olde days, you could download GCC and Binutils from
gnu.org, configure for whatever is your architecture, and most times
it just worked.
For some reason
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Bill Traynor wrote:
For some reason, that stopped a while ago, and you had to go to
different places to get working basic tools. And often, the place to
go wasn't clear. Different people advertised their "ARM toolchain",
"m68k toolchain" etc. and they were slightly differe
Bill Traynor wrote:
> > For some reason, that stopped a while ago, and you had to go to
> > different places to get working basic tools. And often, the place to
> > go wasn't clear. Different people advertised their "ARM toolchain",
> > "m68k toolchain" etc. and they were slightly different sets
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > Contrast with kernel.org: everyone knows where to get a good working
> > Linux kernel for the mainstream architectures, and the quality work
> > tends to be quite good at reaching mainline there nowadays.
>
> ACK. But you perhaps remember the discussions on LKML where som
On Thursday 12 June 2008 12:52:44 Shaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been following "Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)" and
> felt like asking that is there one good way to get a cross compiler
> work. I tried buildroot, scratchbox and even openMoko with
> openEmbedded but all of them had lots of is
* Bill Traynor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> The "fixed elsewhere" is the problem. If everyone used the most current
> release and worked through issues with the community, this problem would
> go away.
Yep, and here we're again at the point that opensource/community
development and just use o
> Bill Traynor wrote:
>> Maybe I'm being dense, but what's specifically wrong with the current
>> toolchain universe?
>
> Back in ye olde days, you could download GCC and Binutils from
> gnu.org, configure for whatever is your architecture, and most times
> it just worked.
Yes, the difficulty is i
* Jamie Lokier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> For some reason, that stopped a while ago, and you had to go to
> different places to get working basic tools. And often, the place to
> go wasn't clear. Different people advertised their "ARM toolchain",
> "m68k toolchain" etc. and they were slight
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Bill Traynor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It's nice to see we have so many options and related people and pros
>> to it are available around.
>>
>> IMO there should be some sort of effort to standardize the tool-chains
>> and build environments coherently with the
Bill Traynor wrote:
> Maybe I'm being dense, but what's specifically wrong with the current
> toolchain universe?
Back in ye olde days, you could download GCC and Binutils from
gnu.org, configure for whatever is your architecture, and most times
it just worked.
For some reason, that stopped a whi
> It's nice to see we have so many options and related people and pros
> to it are available around.
>
> IMO there should be some sort of effort to standardize the tool-chains
> and build environments coherently with the kernel. I think its a prime
> time to work around all the possibilities and st
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have been following "Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)" and
>> felt like asking that is there one good way to get a cross compiler
>> work. I tried buildroot, scratchbox and even openMoko with
>> openEmbedded but all of them had lots of issues and don't know which
>> will be the
It's nice to see we have so many options and related people and pros
to it are available around.
IMO there should be some sort of effort to standardize the tool-chains
and build environments coherently with the kernel. I think its a prime
time to work around all the possibilities and standardize s
On 2008-06-12 22:52 +0500, Shaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been following "Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)" and
> felt like asking that is there one good way to get a cross compiler
> work. I tried buildroot, scratchbox and even openMoko with
> openEmbedded but all of them had lots of issues a
在 2008-06-13五的 06:34 +0200，Robert Schwebel写道：
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:52:44PM +0500, Shaz wrote:
> > I have been following "Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)" and
> > felt like asking that is there one good way to get a cross compiler
> > work. I tried buildroot, scratchbox and even openM
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:52:44PM +0500, Shaz wrote:
> I have been following "Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)" and
> felt like asking that is there one good way to get a cross compiler
> work. I tried buildroot, scratchbox and even openMoko with
> openEmbedded but all of them had lots of is
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:02:06AM +0500, Shaz wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Bill Traynor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> >
> >> There is no "one good way". I've had decent success building Dan Kegel's
> >> "crosstool" in the past: http:/
On 12-Jun-08, at 1:52 PM, Shaz wrote:
Hi,
I have been following "Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)" and
felt like asking that is there one good way to get a cross compiler
work. I tried buildroot, scratchbox and even openMoko with
openEmbedded but all of them had lots of issues and don't
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Bill Traynor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>
>> There is no "one good way". I've had decent success building Dan Kegel's
>> "crosstool" in the past: http://www.kegel.com/crosstool/
>
> I'd also like to mention Yann's cr
Shaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been following "Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)" and
> felt like asking that is there one good way to get a cross compiler
> work. I tried buildroot, scratchbox and even openMoko with
> openEmbedded but all of them had lots of issues and don't know which
> will
* Bill Traynor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> There is no "one good way". I've had decent success building Dan Kegel's
> "crosstool" in the past: http://www.kegel.com/crosstool/
I'd also like to mention Yann's crosstool-ng :)
cu
--
-
El Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:52:44PM +0500 Shaz ha dit:
> I have been following "Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)" and
> felt like asking that is there one good way to get a cross compiler
> work. I tried buildroot, scratchbox and even openMoko with
> openEmbedded but all of them had lots of i
> Hi,
>
> I have been following "Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)" and
> felt like asking that is there one good way to get a cross compiler
> work. I tried buildroot, scratchbox and even openMoko with
> openEmbedded but all of them had lots of issues and don't know which
> will be the best a
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> I have been following "Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)" and
> felt like asking that is there one good way to get a cross compiler
> work. I tried buildroot, scratchbox and even openMoko with
> openEmbedded but all of them had lots of issues and
Hi,
I have been following "Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)" and
felt like asking that is there one good way to get a cross compiler
work. I tried buildroot, scratchbox and even openMoko with
openEmbedded but all of them had lots of issues and don't know which
will be the best alternative.
28 matches
Mail list logo
