From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from asavdk3.altibox.net ([109.247.116.14]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.89 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1eovCf-0003sr-5F for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 18:02:46 +0000 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 19:00:26 +0100 From: Sam Ravnborg Message-ID: <20180222180026.GA32137@ravnborg.org> References: <20180222080357.7ces7vlsip6gnmxs@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180222080357.7ces7vlsip6gnmxs@pengutronix.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: autotools for barebox host/target tools? To: Sascha Hauer Cc: Barebox List Hi Sasha. > I was just thinking, the kernel build system is great for compiling > barebox itself, but for compiling the userspace host and target tools > autotools would be a better match as they much better allow to specify > the necessary compilers and to pull the necessary dependencies in. What specific problems are you trying to solve that is not solved today by the support in scripts/Makefile.host? I notice you want to build tools for the target as well. This should be relatively easy to add support for that using the current kbuild syntax. I we are going for something more standard then cmake or meson are more modern choices than the dreadful autotools stuff. And with modern I also imply better / simpler. > Any opinions or even volunteers? Any specific program you have in mind? Sam _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox