RE: Comparing Bill and Karim's cross-compile scripts. Updating Bill's to gcc 3.2.3.

[Dan Kegel <dkegel at ixiacom dot com>]

Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> http://www.embeddedtux.org/pipermail/etux/2003-May/000018.html

That's a handy list, thanks.  (BTW looks like your mail
archiver still isn't obscuring email addresses.  I hesitate
to join new mailing lists that don't have that simple privacy guard...)

> > 387: Karim overrides install_root=${TARGET_PEFIX},
> > but Bill uses the default.  This is understandable given the
> > difference in --prefix.  Karim's right, I think.
> > Also, Karim gives prefix="", which I think is just his personal
> > bias; I think it causes libraries to end up in /lib instead of
> > /usr/lib on the target.
>
> Actually, this just makes it so that all libs end up in
> ${TARGET_PREFIX}/lib on the host, which is fine for a cross-development
> toolchain. On the target, though, this makes no difference since the
> files that would usually be in /usr/lib are only useful at link time.
> The libs you need to copy on the target for runtime would have to be in
> /lib anyway.

Perhaps, but I prefer to follow the FHS even here.  I see no
benefit from smashing the /usr/lib libraries into /lib.  I'm
doing embedded Linux, and I want stuff in the same place regardless
of whether my users do native or cross builds (modulo a prefix, of course).

> As I point out in the above archived mail, I'm not personally a fan
> of automated scripts, but I understand some people prefer using them.

My toolchain MUST be built from an automated script under source control.
There is simply no choice; our business requires it. 
- Dan



------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com