autotools for barebox host/target tools?

autotools for barebox host/target tools?

[Sascha Hauer]

Hi All,

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.
Any opinions or even volunteers?

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: autotools for barebox host/target tools?

[Giorgio Dal Molin]

Hi,

I have some experience with the gnu autotools.

Could you specify which tools you are thinking about ?

An alternative to the gnu autotools could also be 'meson'.

giorgio

> On February 22, 2018 at 9:03 AM Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> 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.
> Any opinions or even volunteers?
> 
> Sascha
> 
> -- 
> Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
> Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
> Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
> Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
> 
> _______________________________________________
> barebox mailing list
> barebox@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: autotools for barebox host/target tools?

[Sam Ravnborg]

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

Re: autotools for barebox host/target tools?

[Sascha Hauer]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 07:00:26PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> 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?

No really specific problems. I just think that while handmade Makefiles
are good for the kernel/barebox, compiling userspace tools feels more
natural using widespread userspace build environments. Manually calling
pkg-config doesn't sound like a good idea and probably we would need
another pkg-config when compiling for the target. Now we normally do
not want to build the USB upload tools we have for the target, so this
argument doesn't really count.

> 
> 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.

We do this already using targetprogs-y

> 
> 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.

I didn't know about meson. This one sounds interesting and Michael
Olbrich, our build system expert, also has good things to tell about
meson.

As said, there are no concrete problems I wanted to solve, I just had
the vague feeling that for example integration into build systems
like YOCTO or ptxdist) might get simpler. Anyway, it was just an idea.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox