Patchwork [4/9] manual: faq: add entry about the relocatable toolchain

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Samuel Martin
Date Feb. 13, 2013, 10:59 p.m.
Message ID <c99516cd998754307f0a5e3b19579316f37d9f95.1360795941.git.s.martin49@gmail.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/220293/
State Changes Requested
Headers show

Comments

Samuel Martin - Feb. 13, 2013, 10:59 p.m.
Signed-off-by: Samuel Martin <s.martin49@gmail.com>
---
 docs/manual/faq-troubleshooting.txt | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
Arnout Vandecappelle - Feb. 14, 2013, 6:49 a.m.
On 13/02/13 23:59, Samuel Martin wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Samuel Martin <s.martin49@gmail.com>
> ---
>   docs/manual/faq-troubleshooting.txt | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/docs/manual/faq-troubleshooting.txt b/docs/manual/faq-troubleshooting.txt
> index f91a8ef..8b0882a 100644
> --- a/docs/manual/faq-troubleshooting.txt
> +++ b/docs/manual/faq-troubleshooting.txt
> @@ -126,3 +126,24 @@ directory as the new root, will most likely fail.
>   If you want to run the target filesystem inside a chroot, or as an NFS
>   root, then use the tarball image generated in +images/+ and extract it
>   as root.
> +
> +[[faq-relocatable-toolchains]]
> +Are Buildroot toolchains relocatable?
> +-------------------------------------
> +
> +Because Buildroot uses several toolchain backends, there is one anwser
> +per backend:
> +
> +Using the external or crosstool-NG toolchain backend
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +These toolchains are mostly likely relocatable; the _Buildroot compiler
> +wrapper_ is relocatable.
> +
> +However, some tools built and installed into the +HOST_DIR+ may not be
> +relocatable, with some absolute pathes hard-coded inside.
                                    ^^^^^^ paths

  Regards,
  Arnout

> +
> +Using the internal Buildroot toolchain backend
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +These toolchains are currently *not relocatable*.
>
Thomas Petazzoni - Feb. 14, 2013, 5:32 p.m.
Dear Samuel Martin,

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:59:05 +0100, Samuel Martin wrote:
> 
> Signed-off-by: Samuel Martin <s.martin49@gmail.com>
> ---
>  docs/manual/faq-troubleshooting.txt | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/docs/manual/faq-troubleshooting.txt b/docs/manual/faq-troubleshooting.txt
> index f91a8ef..8b0882a 100644
> --- a/docs/manual/faq-troubleshooting.txt
> +++ b/docs/manual/faq-troubleshooting.txt
> @@ -126,3 +126,24 @@ directory as the new root, will most likely fail.
>  If you want to run the target filesystem inside a chroot, or as an NFS
>  root, then use the tarball image generated in +images/+ and extract it
>  as root.
> +
> +[[faq-relocatable-toolchains]]
> +Are Buildroot toolchains relocatable?
> +-------------------------------------
> +
> +Because Buildroot uses several toolchain backends, there is one anwser
> +per backend:
> +
> +Using the external or crosstool-NG toolchain backend
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +These toolchains are mostly likely relocatable; the _Buildroot compiler
> +wrapper_ is relocatable.
> +
> +However, some tools built and installed into the +HOST_DIR+ may not be
> +relocatable, with some absolute pathes hard-coded inside.

I find this text rather confusing. What does "mostly likely" means for
the reader? The reader surely wants to know if the toolchain is
relocatable or not.

Therefore, I think this text should be changed to clarify what is meant
by "toolchain". Is it just the bare toolchain (gcc, binutils, libc,
kernel headers), or is it the complete toolchain that Buildroot
produces, with all the additional libraries and headers?

Also, you mention the "Buildroot compiler wrapper", but nowhere in the
documentation we explain what it is, and I don't think it should be
explained in the documentation, except in a section dedicated to "Deep
Buildroot internals", but certainly not to answer a FAQ question about
relocatable toolchains.

I would rather think that a section discussing how to use the "SDK"
produced by Buildroot, and how it can be shared with application
developers, could mention that the SDK is currently not relocatable,
but that we are working on fixing this.

Best regards,

Thomas
Samuel Martin - Feb. 23, 2013, 1:33 p.m.
Hi Thomas,

2013/2/14 Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>:
> Dear Samuel Martin,
>
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:59:05 +0100, Samuel Martin wrote:
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Samuel Martin <s.martin49@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  docs/manual/faq-troubleshooting.txt | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/docs/manual/faq-troubleshooting.txt b/docs/manual/faq-troubleshooting.txt
>> index f91a8ef..8b0882a 100644
>> --- a/docs/manual/faq-troubleshooting.txt
>> +++ b/docs/manual/faq-troubleshooting.txt
>> @@ -126,3 +126,24 @@ directory as the new root, will most likely fail.
>>  If you want to run the target filesystem inside a chroot, or as an NFS
>>  root, then use the tarball image generated in +images/+ and extract it
>>  as root.
>> +
>> +[[faq-relocatable-toolchains]]
>> +Are Buildroot toolchains relocatable?
>> +-------------------------------------
>> +
>> +Because Buildroot uses several toolchain backends, there is one anwser
>> +per backend:
>> +
>> +Using the external or crosstool-NG toolchain backend
>> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> +
>> +These toolchains are mostly likely relocatable; the _Buildroot compiler
>> +wrapper_ is relocatable.
>> +
>> +However, some tools built and installed into the +HOST_DIR+ may not be
>> +relocatable, with some absolute pathes hard-coded inside.
>
> I find this text rather confusing. What does "mostly likely" means for
> the reader? The reader surely wants to know if the toolchain is
> relocatable or not.
>
> Therefore, I think this text should be changed to clarify what is meant
> by "toolchain". Is it just the bare toolchain (gcc, binutils, libc,
> kernel headers), or is it the complete toolchain that Buildroot
> produces, with all the additional libraries and headers?
I agree with this point.

>
> Also, you mention the "Buildroot compiler wrapper", but nowhere in the
> documentation we explain what it is, and I don't think it should be
> explained in the documentation, except in a section dedicated to "Deep
> Buildroot internals", but certainly not to answer a FAQ question about
> relocatable toolchains.
Agree.

>
> I would rather think that a section discussing how to use the "SDK"
> produced by Buildroot, and how it can be shared with application
> developers, could mention that the SDK is currently not relocatable,
> but that we are working on fixing this.
Well, this will certainly be a better section to develop this point.

The SDK section will come later (not sure it'll be ready for the
2013.02 release...).


Regards,

Patch

diff --git a/docs/manual/faq-troubleshooting.txt b/docs/manual/faq-troubleshooting.txt
index f91a8ef..8b0882a 100644
--- a/docs/manual/faq-troubleshooting.txt
+++ b/docs/manual/faq-troubleshooting.txt
@@ -126,3 +126,24 @@  directory as the new root, will most likely fail.
 If you want to run the target filesystem inside a chroot, or as an NFS
 root, then use the tarball image generated in +images/+ and extract it
 as root.
+
+[[faq-relocatable-toolchains]]
+Are Buildroot toolchains relocatable?
+-------------------------------------
+
+Because Buildroot uses several toolchain backends, there is one anwser
+per backend:
+
+Using the external or crosstool-NG toolchain backend
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+These toolchains are mostly likely relocatable; the _Buildroot compiler
+wrapper_ is relocatable.
+
+However, some tools built and installed into the +HOST_DIR+ may not be
+relocatable, with some absolute pathes hard-coded inside.
+
+Using the internal Buildroot toolchain backend
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+These toolchains are currently *not relocatable*.