public inbox for crossgcc@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Add additional libraries and header files to toolchain
@ 2016-02-16  6:39 Tobias Andresen
  2016-02-16 20:01 ` Chris Packham
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tobias Andresen @ 2016-02-16  6:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: crossgcc

Hi,

what would be the best way to add additional libraries and header files 
(i.e. libusb, ...) to an existing toolchain
or add them to the build process of crosstools-ng so the user can select 
a special version like glibc etc.
Thanks in advance.

Best regards

Tobias




--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: Add additional libraries and header files to toolchain
  2016-02-16  6:39 Add additional libraries and header files to toolchain Tobias Andresen
@ 2016-02-16 20:01 ` Chris Packham
  2016-02-17  6:34   ` Tobias Andresen
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Chris Packham @ 2016-02-16 20:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tobias Andresen, crossgcc

Hi Tobias,

On 02/16/2016 07:40 PM, Tobias Andresen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> what would be the best way to add additional libraries and header files
> (i.e. libusb, ...) to an existing toolchain
> or add them to the build process of crosstools-ng so the user can select
> a special version like glibc etc.
> Thanks in advance.
>

Generally you wouldn't add libraries to crosstool-ng. glibc/uclibc/musl 
are special because gcc needs to be built against the specific libc 
implementation.

libusb and others aren't required by gcc so don't generally fit the 
bill. What I suspect you want is a build system that works with 
toolchains produced by crosstool-ng. Buildroot (https://buildroot.org) 
is one such build system but I'm sure there are others.



--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: Add additional libraries and header files to toolchain
  2016-02-16 20:01 ` Chris Packham
@ 2016-02-17  6:34   ` Tobias Andresen
  2016-02-17 16:30     ` Dan Wilder
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tobias Andresen @ 2016-02-17  6:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chris Packham, crossgcc

Hi Chris,

i agree that libraries like libusb etc. should normally not part of the 
toolchain.
But sometimes it seems to be easier to provide a complete toolchain to 
someone else containing those libraries (if required in special versions)
than providing an rootfs or similar wich contains them.

Regards

Tobias



#Am 16.02.2016 um 21:01 schrieb Chris Packham:
> Hi Tobias,
>
> On 02/16/2016 07:40 PM, Tobias Andresen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> what would be the best way to add additional libraries and header files
>> (i.e. libusb, ...) to an existing toolchain
>> or add them to the build process of crosstools-ng so the user can select
>> a special version like glibc etc.
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
> Generally you wouldn't add libraries to crosstool-ng. glibc/uclibc/musl
> are special because gcc needs to be built against the specific libc
> implementation.
>
> libusb and others aren't required by gcc so don't generally fit the
> bill. What I suspect you want is a build system that works with
> toolchains produced by crosstool-ng. Buildroot (https://buildroot.org)
> is one such build system but I'm sure there are others.
>
>


--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* RE: Add additional libraries and header files to toolchain
  2016-02-17  6:34   ` Tobias Andresen
@ 2016-02-17 16:30     ` Dan Wilder
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Dan Wilder @ 2016-02-17 16:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tobias Andresen, Chris Packham, crossgcc

I wonder if it would make sense to add them to the toolchain as a separate step afterwards?

--
Dan Wilder
________________________________________
From: crossgcc-owner@sourceware.org [crossgcc-owner@sourceware.org] on behalf of Tobias Andresen [tobiasarp@web.de]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 10:35 PM
To: Chris Packham; crossgcc@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Add additional libraries and header files to toolchain

Hi Chris,

i agree that libraries like libusb etc. should normally not part of the
toolchain.
But sometimes it seems to be easier to provide a complete toolchain to
someone else containing those libraries (if required in special versions)
than providing an rootfs or similar wich contains them.

Regards

Tobias



#Am 16.02.2016 um 21:01 schrieb Chris Packham:
> Hi Tobias,
>
> On 02/16/2016 07:40 PM, Tobias Andresen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> what would be the best way to add additional libraries and header files
>> (i.e. libusb, ...) to an existing toolchain
>> or add them to the build process of crosstools-ng so the user can select
>> a special version like glibc etc.
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
> Generally you wouldn't add libraries to crosstool-ng. glibc/uclibc/musl
> are special because gcc needs to be built against the specific libc
> implementation.
>
> libusb and others aren't required by gcc so don't generally fit the
> bill. What I suspect you want is a build system that works with
> toolchains produced by crosstool-ng. Buildroot (https://buildroot.org)
> is one such build system but I'm sure there are others.
>
>


--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq


--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2016-02-17 16:30 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-02-16  6:39 Add additional libraries and header files to toolchain Tobias Andresen
2016-02-16 20:01 ` Chris Packham
2016-02-17  6:34   ` Tobias Andresen
2016-02-17 16:30     ` Dan Wilder

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).