External toolchain: crosstool-NG instead of buildroot?
The buildroot docs recommends using crosstool-NG to generate external toolchains.
Is there some reason one shouldn't or can't use a toolchain generated buildroot?
Signature · 4 lines
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Alright, you!!
at Imitate a WOUNDED SEAL
visi.com pleading for a PARKING
SPACE!!Hello,
Le Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:00:28 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards <[email protected]> a ?crit :
Quoted 5 lines
The buildroot docs recommends using crosstool-NG to generate external toolchains.
Is there some reason one shouldn't or can't use a toolchain generated buildroot?
Theorically, Buildroot should work just as fine as Crosstool-NG for generating toolchain.
In practive, my own *personal* feeling is that the Crosstool-NG community is spending more time to improve this toolchain generation tool than the Buildroot community spends on the toolchain part. I have the impression that they do a better job at following new upstream versions, integrating necessary patches, etc. But again, I have no objective facts to validate these feelings.
Cheers,
Thomas
Signature · 4 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com
Quoted 10 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
Grant Edwards <[email protected]> a ??crit :
Quoted 5 lines
The buildroot docs recommends using crosstool-NG to generate external toolchains.
Is there some reason one shouldn't or can't use a toolchain generated buildroot?
Theorically, Buildroot should work just as fine as Crosstool-NG for generating toolchain.
So far it seems to be working fine. I haven't figured out what the minimal set of required files is. Initially I took a snapshot of everything under output/staging. Subsequent makes using that as an external toolchain failed because it found files in output/staging/usr/share that it didn't expect to be there. I removed usr/share from my "toolchain", and now builds seem to work fine.
Quoted 6 lines
In practive, my own *personal* feeling is that the Crosstool-NG community is spending more time to improve this toolchain generation tool than the Buildroot community spends on the toolchain part. I have the impression that they do a better job at following new upstream versions, integrating necessary patches, etc. But again, I have no objective facts to validate these feelings.
For now I think I'll stick with a buildroot-generated toolchain.
Signature · 3 lines
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I'm having a
at tax-deductible experience!
visi.com I need an energy crunch!!Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Grant" == Grant Edwards <[email protected]> writes:
Grant> The buildroot docs recommends using crosstool-NG to generate Grant> external toolchains.
Grant> Is there some reason one shouldn't or can't use a toolchain Grant> generated buildroot?
No not at all. The reason for recommending crosstool-NG is simply that it's a solution known to work, and we had some discussion about working closer together with the crosstool-NG people, E.G. long term perhaps getting rid of toolchain building in BR, and simply use crosstool-NG for it.
Signature · 1 line
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
Hello Peter, and All!
Quoted 4 lines · On Sunday 20 December 2009 20:50:09 Peter Korsgaard wrote:
we had some discussion about working
closer together with the crosstool-NG people, E.G. long term perhaps getting rid of toolchain building in BR, and simply use crosstool-NG for it.
As you mentioned the subject, I think we should prepare both projects so crosstool-NG offers all that buildroot needs, and maybe tweak a few things in buildroot to efficiently use crostool-NG.
The plans for crosstool-NG are a ~4-month release cycle, as 3 months is too short for me alone to handle. I think I can adapt the release cycle to more closely follow buildroot. In fact, I think that, to be efficient, crosstool-NG should be released one month ahead of buildroot, so that potential bugs can be fixed and a bug-fix release can be made just before the buildroot release. That way, buildroot can rely on an as-stable-as- possible release. Next crosstool-NG release is due for late January, so that should be a match for the next buildroot (planned February, I guess).
Apart form that, we could build upon the results of the BR developper day. Should I repost my summary to this list?
Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.
Signature · 6 lines
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | `------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Yann" == Yann E MORIN <[email protected]> writes:
Hi,
Yann> Hello Peter, and All!
Quoted 4 lines · Yann> On Sunday 20 December 2009 20:50:09 Peter Korsgaard wrote:
Quoted 4 lines
we had some discussion about working
closer together with the crosstool-NG people, E.G. long term perhaps getting rid of toolchain building in BR, and simply use crosstool-NG for it.
Yann> As you mentioned the subject, I think we should prepare both Yann> projects so crosstool-NG offers all that buildroot needs, and Yann> maybe tweak a few things in buildroot to efficiently use Yann> crostool-NG.
Yes definately - Yann, I'm really sorry that I haven't gotten back to you on your mail from ELCE - Things have been kind of crazy here, but now holidays are coming up.
Yann> The plans for crosstool-NG are a ~4-month release cycle, as 3 Yann> months is too short for me alone to handle. I think I can adapt Yann> the release cycle to more closely follow buildroot. In fact, I Yann> think that, to be efficient, crosstool-NG should be released one Yann> month ahead of buildroot, so that potential bugs can be fixed and Yann> a bug-fix release can be made just before the buildroot Yann> release. That way, buildroot can rely on an as-stable-as- Yann> possible release. Next crosstool-NG release is due for late Yann> January, so that should be a match for the next buildroot Yann> (planned February, I guess).
Yes, that sounds good. Why is a 3 month release schedule significantly more work than a 4 month one? It should just mean less new development done per release.
Yann> Apart form that, we could build upon the results of the BR Yann> developper day. Should I repost my summary to this list?
Yes please do.
Talking about developers day, Thomas and me are trying to arrange another dev day after FOSDEM (February 8) - Anyone interested?
Signature · 1 line
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
Peter,
All,
Quoted 7 lines · On Monday 21 December 2009 21:06:08 Peter Korsgaard wrote:
Yann> As you mentioned the subject, I think we should prepare both Yann> projects so crosstool-NG offers all that buildroot needs, and Yann> maybe tweak a few things in buildroot to efficiently use Yann> crostool-NG.
Yes definately - Yann, I'm really sorry that I haven't gotten back to you on your mail from ELCE - Things have been kind of crazy here, but now holidays are coming up.
No problem. I've had stuff to do here as well. Holidays are coming here too, but one week will be short enough...
[--SNIP--]
Quoted 3 lines
Yes, that sounds good. Why is a 3 month release schedule significantly more work than a 4 month one? It should just mean less new development done per release.
3 months is too short a time to bundle enough new features to warrant a new release, while 4 months is just enough to give me a little break while still allowing substantial advancement in the project.
But I do agree that once we join forces on the toolchain part, a 3-month cycle will be OK.
Quoted 3 lines
Yann> Apart form that, we could build upon the results of the BR Yann> developper day. Should I repost my summary to this list?
Yes please do.
Will do in a separate post.
Quoted 2 lines
Talking about developers day, Thomas and me are trying to arrange another dev day after FOSDEM (February 8) - Anyone interested?
I'll be attending FOSDEM, but am not too sure I'll be able to stay monday. In fact, I already have a train home booked on monday. If I can cancel it, and arrange for a second day off tuesday, then I'l gladly join, if it makes sense.
Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.
Signature · 6 lines
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | `------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Yann" == Yann E MORIN <[email protected]> writes:
Hi,
Yann> No problem. I've had stuff to do here as well. Holidays are Yann> coming here too, but one week will be short enough...
Yes, I know .. :/
Yann> 3 months is too short a time to bundle enough new features to warrant a Yann> new release, while 4 months is just enough to give me a little break Yann> while still allowing substantial advancement in the project.
Yann> But I do agree that once we join forces on the toolchain part, a 3-month Yann> cycle will be OK.
Ok.
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Talking about developers day, Thomas and me are trying to arrange another dev day after FOSDEM (February 8) - Anyone interested?
Yann> I'll be attending FOSDEM, but am not too sure I'll be able to Yann> stay monday. In fact, I already have a train home booked on Yann> monday. If I can cancel it, and arrange for a second day off Yann> tuesday, then I'l gladly join, if it makes sense.
It would be very good if you could make it - Otherwise we can discuss during FOSDEM instead.
Signature · 1 line
Bye, Peter Korsgaard