On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> There are several other packages which are broken for embedded >> architectures, which I will hopefully attempt to fix by submitting patches >> upstream. But this is why we should be cautious about including new tools >> for compiling the kernel. Sam Ravnborg was correct in that a C program to do >> the work would be the proper way. But by not addressing a currently existing >> problem with an adequate replacement with something that does not exist >> currently, seems faulty. > > Why are "make headers_install" such a crucial thing for your > embedded environmnet? Sanity check. If the environment cannot replicate itself, then something has been faulty in the cross-compiling stage, that was used to propagate a native environment for the target architecture. > I would assume that if this of such improtance then there is also > someone to step up and contribute a C version of it. You've already dismissed a shell version to correct the issue, in hopes of a "possible" C version. It would be nice, I'm not capable of doing it personally, but a solution already exists to "unbreak" the kernel build. If you're unwilling to merge the current patches, then feel free to claim that this doesn't break anything on current architectures, but it's incorrect, due to Perl not even compiling as is currently on a native uclibc environment. I look forward to what other tools will be introduced to break yet more architectures until the kernel cannot be compiled unless on an i686+glibc architecture. > Sam -- Mark A. Miller mark@xxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
