New: Cross-compiled binaries should be installed into staging
https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1681
Host: i686-linux
Target: arm-softfloat-linux-uclibcgnueabi
Summary: Cross-compiled binaries should be installed into
staging
Product: buildroot
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: major
Priority: P5
Component: Other
AssignedTo: unassigned at buildroot.uclibc.org
ReportedBy: gustavo at zacarias.com.ar
CC: buildroot at uclibc.org
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Created attachment 1633
--> https://bugs.busybox.net/attachment.cgi?id=1633
Lua: don't install binaries into staging dir
Some packages install cross-compiled binaries into the staging dir. This is wrong since they could predate host tools in the PATH and usually aren't host-executable anyway.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.busybox.net/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Buildroot] [Bug 1681] Cross-compiled binaries shouldn't be installed into staging
https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1681
Gustavo Zacarias <[email protected]> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|Cross-compiled binaries |Cross-compiled binaries
|should be installed into |shouldn't be installed into
|staging |stagingSignature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.busybox.net/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Buildroot] [Bug 1681] Cross-compiled binaries shouldn't be installed into staging
In reply to bugzilla at busybox.nethttps://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1681
--- Comment #1 from Gustavo Zacarias <[email protected]> --- Created attachment 1639
--> https://bugs.busybox.net/attachment.cgi?id=1639
Openssl: don't install openssl bin into staging
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.busybox.net/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Buildroot] [Bug 1681] Cross-compiled binaries shouldn't be installed into staging
In reply to bugzilla at busybox.nethttps://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1681
--- Comment #2 from Gustavo Zacarias <[email protected]> --- Created attachment 1645
--> https://bugs.busybox.net/attachment.cgi?id=1645
e2fsprogs: Don't install binaries to staging
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.busybox.net/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Buildroot] [Bug 1681] Cross-compiled binaries shouldn't be installed into staging
In reply to bugzilla at busybox.nethttps://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1681
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Petazzoni <[email protected]> --- As discussed on IRC (but I think it's better to raise my comments in Bugzilla or on the list), I don't really agree with such a change.
Actually, I think we should do quite the opposite: install all binaries in $(STAGING_DIR)/bin and $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/bin.
To me $(STAGING_DIR) should be a *superset* of $(TARGET_DIR). In $(STAGING_DIR), you should have everything: binaries compiled with debugging symbols, documentation, headers, all the mess. $(TARGET_DIR) is simply the result of filtering $(STAGING_DIR).
Now, the point that was made on IRC is that this doesn't work if people add $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/bin to their PATH, because then their system would try to run binaries that are compiled for the target. My answer is that people shouldn't add $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/bin to the PATH.
So, either :
* We install the toolchain outside $(STAGING_DIR), so that we don't mix host
binaries and target binaries in $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/bin
* People refer to the toolchain inside $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/bin using absolute
paths
Of course, I'm open to discussion on having a different semantic for $(STAGING_DIR), but that's something that should really be raised on the list, to see how we solve the different problems.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.busybox.net/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Buildroot] [Bug 1681] Cross-compiled binaries shouldn't be installed into staging
In reply to bugzilla at busybox.nethttps://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1681
Thomas Petazzoni <[email protected]> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|2010.05 |2010.08
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Petazzoni <[email protected]> --- Peter, what do we do with this bug ? What are the actions points related to this bug for 2010.08 and post-2010.08 ?
In http://buildroot.org/buildroot.html#using_toolchain we're still suggesting users to add $(STAGING_DIR) to their PATH. Possible proposals for 2010.08 :
* Change the documentation to tell users to use absolute paths to the tools
and to not add $(STAGING_DIR) to their PATH.
* Create a new directory with wrappers for the toolchain tools, so that users
can put this directory in their PATH.
Choice ?
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.busybox.net/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Buildroot] [Bug 1681] Cross-compiled binaries shouldn't be installed into staging
In reply to bugzilla at busybox.nethttps://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1681
Gustavo Zacarias <[email protected]> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED--- Comment #5 from Gustavo Zacarias <[email protected]> --- Solved in git with the toolchain rework.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.busybox.net/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.