| Message ID | 1456770170-6326-1-git-send-email-jer@airfi.aero |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Headers | show |
Am Mon, 29 Feb 2016 19:22:50 +0100 schrieb Jeroen Roovers: > By setting a symlink to the expected target we might even solve some > real problems. Hi, two years ago I proposed a similar patch, which was rejected: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/312273/ Regards, Bernd
Hello, On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 20:19:58 +0100, Bernd Kuhls wrote: > > By setting a symlink to the expected target we might even solve some > > real problems. > > two years ago I proposed a similar patch, which was rejected: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/312273/ If we were to do this, then I would prefer to completely remove $(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin/pkg-config, and only have $(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin/$(GNU_TARGET_NAME)-pkg-config. What I dislike with the current setup is that if you add $(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin to your PATH, then any call to pkg-config returns values that are valid only when cross-compiling, which is not necessarily what one would expect. However, doing this change means that any configure script or Makefile that calls pkg-config directly would no longer find our pkg-config. Best regards, Thomas
>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> writes: > Hello, > On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 20:19:58 +0100, Bernd Kuhls wrote: >> > By setting a symlink to the expected target we might even solve some >> > real problems. >> >> two years ago I proposed a similar patch, which was rejected: >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/312273/ > If we were to do this, then I would prefer to completely remove > $(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin/pkg-config, and only have > $(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin/$(GNU_TARGET_NAME)-pkg-config. > What I dislike with the current setup is that if you add > $(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin to your PATH, then any call to pkg-config returns > values that are valid only when cross-compiling, which is not > necessarily what one would expect. On the other hand, the situations where you add it to the path are often where you _DO_ want to cross compile. > However, doing this change means that any configure script or Makefile > that calls pkg-config directly would no longer find our pkg-config. Indeed, that would afaik require quite some patching to fix.
Peter, On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 00:09:34 +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > > What I dislike with the current setup is that if you add > > $(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin to your PATH, then any call to pkg-config returns > > values that are valid only when cross-compiling, which is not > > necessarily what one would expect. > > On the other hand, the situations where you add it to the path are often > where you _DO_ want to cross compile. Indeed, but you often end up doing both cross-compilation and native compilation, and it's pretty easy to get confused by a pkg-config returning absurd values. Thomas
>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> writes: Hi, >> On the other hand, the situations where you add it to the path are >> often where you _DO_ want to cross compile. > Indeed, but you often end up doing both cross-compilation and native > compilation, and it's pretty easy to get confused by a pkg-config > returning absurd values. Sure, but you would get similary confused if you ended up using the host pkg-config when cross compiling.
On 02/29/16 21:35, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: [snip] > What I dislike with the current setup is that if you add > $(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin to your PATH, then any call to pkg-config returns > values that are valid only when cross-compiling, which is not > necessarily what one would expect. For exactly this reason I would like to introduce a config-script directory, e.g. $(HOST_DIR)/usr/cross-bin. In this directory we would put the cross-pkg-config and the fixed up config scripts we now search for in $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/bin. Regards, Arnout > > However, doing this change means that any configure script or Makefile > that calls pkg-config directly would no longer find our pkg-config. > > Best regards, > > Thomas >
Dear Jeroen Roovers, On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 19:22:50 +0100, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > Lots of packages start to call pkg-config "properly" and run into > failures like this: > > * > * System Logging Utilities > * > syslogd (SYSLOGD) [N/y/?] n > klogd (KLOGD) [N/y/?] n > logger (LOGGER) [Y/n/?] y > make[2]: .../output/host/usr/bin/arm-buildroot-linux-gnueabihf-pkg-config: Command not found > make[2]: .../output/host/usr/bin/arm-buildroot-linux-gnueabihf-pkg-config: Command not found > make[1]: Leaving directory '.../output/build/busybox-1.24.1' I think we should solve this specific problem by passing the PKG_CONFIG in the Busybox environment. Best regards, Thomas
Arnout, All, On 2016-03-01 22:12 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly: > On 02/29/16 21:35, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > [snip] > > What I dislike with the current setup is that if you add > > $(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin to your PATH, then any call to pkg-config returns > > values that are valid only when cross-compiling, which is not > > necessarily what one would expect. > > For exactly this reason I would like to introduce a config-script directory, > e.g. $(HOST_DIR)/usr/cross-bin. In this directory we would put the > cross-pkg-config and the fixed up config scripts we now search for in > $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/bin. Like this: https://git.buildroot.org/~ymorin/git/buildroot/log/?h=yem/foo-config-in-PATH Last I sent this series, Thomas was not fond of it, IIRC... http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2015-December/thread.html#147891 http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2015-December/147927.html and ensuing mails... BTW, you were in Cc for that series. ;-) Regards, Yann E. MORIN. > Regards, > Arnout > > > > > However, doing this change means that any configure script or Makefile > > that calls pkg-config directly would no longer find our pkg-config. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Thomas > > > > > -- > Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be > Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 > Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be > G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven > LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle > GPG fingerprint: 7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF > _______________________________________________ > buildroot mailing list > buildroot@busybox.net > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
Thomas, All, On 2016-03-02 21:25 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly: > On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 19:22:50 +0100, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > > Lots of packages start to call pkg-config "properly" and run into > > failures like this: > > > > * > > * System Logging Utilities > > * > > syslogd (SYSLOGD) [N/y/?] n > > klogd (KLOGD) [N/y/?] n > > logger (LOGGER) [Y/n/?] y > > make[2]: .../output/host/usr/bin/arm-buildroot-linux-gnueabihf-pkg-config: Command not found > > make[2]: .../output/host/usr/bin/arm-buildroot-linux-gnueabihf-pkg-config: Command not found > > make[1]: Leaving directory '.../output/build/busybox-1.24.1' > > I think we should solve this specific problem by passing the PKG_CONFIG > in the Busybox environment. Should we not always pass PKG_CONFIG in the target environment, instead of per-package? Regards, Yann E. MORIN. > Best regards, > > Thomas > -- > Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons > Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering > http://free-electrons.com > _______________________________________________ > buildroot mailing list > buildroot@busybox.net > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
On 03/18/16 18:24, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > Arnout, All, > > On 2016-03-01 22:12 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly: >> On 02/29/16 21:35, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: >> [snip] >>> What I dislike with the current setup is that if you add >>> $(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin to your PATH, then any call to pkg-config returns >>> values that are valid only when cross-compiling, which is not >>> necessarily what one would expect. >> >> For exactly this reason I would like to introduce a config-script directory, >> e.g. $(HOST_DIR)/usr/cross-bin. In this directory we would put the >> cross-pkg-config and the fixed up config scripts we now search for in >> $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/bin. > > Like this: > https://git.buildroot.org/~ymorin/git/buildroot/log/?h=yem/foo-config-in-PATH > > Last I sent this series, Thomas was not fond of it, IIRC... I re-read the thread and couldn't find a real argument from Thomas :-) > > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2015-December/thread.html#147891 > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2015-December/147927.html > and ensuing mails... > > BTW, you were in Cc for that series. ;-) Yes, it is still in my list of 500 mails marked "I really should reply to this, but it's going to take a bit of time so let's first do the easy stuff". Thomas DS can explain you all about that :-P Regards, Arnout > > Regards, > Yann E. MORIN. > >> Regards, >> Arnout >> >>> >>> However, doing this change means that any configure script or Makefile >>> that calls pkg-config directly would no longer find our pkg-config. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Thomas >>> >> >> >> -- >> Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be >> Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 >> Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be >> G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven >> LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle >> GPG fingerprint: 7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF >> _______________________________________________ >> buildroot mailing list >> buildroot@busybox.net >> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot >
diff --git a/package/pkgconf/pkgconf.mk b/package/pkgconf/pkgconf.mk index c8b0cba..a183a1c 100644 --- a/package/pkgconf/pkgconf.mk +++ b/package/pkgconf/pkgconf.mk @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ define HOST_PKGCONF_INSTALL_WRAPPER $(SED) 's,@PKG_CONFIG_LIBDIR@,$(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib/pkgconfig:$(STAGING_DIR)/usr/share/pkgconfig,' \ -e 's,@STAGING_DIR@,$(STAGING_DIR),' \ $(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin/pkg-config + ln -sf $(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin/pkg-config $(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin/$(GNU_TARGET_NAME)-pkg-config endef define HOST_PKGCONF_STATIC