[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       buildroot
Subject:    [Buildroot] --includedir=/usr/include	vs	--includedir=(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include
From:       hcegtvedt () atmel ! com (Hans-Christian Egtvedt)
Date:       2007-07-31 6:13:27
Message-ID: 1185862407.17800.1.camel () localhost ! localdomain
[Download RAW message or body]


On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 21:36 +0200, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:06:34PM +0200, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
> >On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Steven J. Hill wrote:
> >
> >> > Noticed that some .mk files use different --includedir= configure options.
> >> > Shouldn't --includedir=/usr/include be used everywhere?
> >> >
> >> With the recent changes that buildroot has undergone, I actually think
> >> this is a good idea. Any objections to getting rid of 'include' in the
> >> staging directory all together and going to 'usr/include'?
> >
> >That's fine with me. But my question was:
> >
> >  --includedir=/usr/include vs --includedir=$(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include
> >                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> depending on the package --prefix=$(STAGING_DIR)/usr
> is enough and all other (except, perhaps specifying the location of
> $(STAGING_DIR)/etc) are not needed anymore.
> 
> There are indeed quite some packages that are not yet converted. Patches
> to clean those up are very welcome.

In the same go a cleanup of all libdir variables in lib<name>.la should
be done? I see some libraries have /usr/lib there, and it can make some
confusing moments if you have the library installed on the build machine
as well.

-- 
With kind regards,

Hans-Christian Egtvedt, siv.ing. (M.Sc.)
Applications Engineer - AVR32 System Solutions - Atmel Norway


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]