David McCullough wrote:
Jivin John Williams lays it down ...
Hi David,
David McCullough wrote:
Jivin John Williams lays it down ...
David McCullough wrote:
Jivin Steve Bennett lays it down ...
This often (always?) happens if you reconfigure busybox and rebuild.
The solution is simply to
Boy, I sure touched a live wire here, eh? Still, Thanks!
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> This often (always?) happens if you reconfigure busybox and rebuild.
> The solution is simply to clean out busybox after reconfiguring to ensure
> that everything is rebuilt.
>
> $ make user/busybox_clean
Hi Doug,
Yes, you are correct, one of the main differences is the extra directory
level.
It looks simple but one actually gets alot from it, separating the snapgears
makefiles (or building framework to put a name for it) from whatever build
framework a package may have although most will have m
Hi Per,
I believe your concept is similar to what Greg/David
have started with 'makefile' (versus 'Makefile'),
creating a build directory, and running configure from
the build directory (net-snmp and quagga are
examples). In other words, 'makefile' contains the
uClinux/snapgear "glue". The one d
Hi all,
This is why I some months ago suggested to take the "glue makefile"
concept in use :)
The glue makefile concept is that in snapgear/user every "package" looks
like this
snapgear/[user|lib]/
Makefile
This structure is owned by snapgear. The "glue makefile" is the makefile
John Williams wrote:
> I've found that if you change the busybox config, you have to rebuild it
> (make user_only) *twice* before doing a make romfs, to ensure all new
> applets are built and properly symlinked. Never taken the time to
> figure out why, just a gotcha.
>
> Anyone else seen this
Jivin John Williams lays it down ...
> Hi David,
>
> David McCullough wrote:
> >Jivin John Williams lays it down ...
> >
> >>David McCullough wrote:
> >>
> >>>Jivin Steve Bennett lays it down ...
> >>>
> >>>
> This often (always?) happens if you reconfigure busybox and rebuild.
> The solu
Hi David,
David McCullough wrote:
Jivin John Williams lays it down ...
David McCullough wrote:
Jivin Steve Bennett lays it down ...
This often (always?) happens if you reconfigure busybox and rebuild.
The solution is simply to clean out busybox after reconfiguring to
ensure
that everyt
Jivin John Williams lays it down ...
> David McCullough wrote:
> >Jivin Steve Bennett lays it down ...
> >
> >>This often (always?) happens if you reconfigure busybox and rebuild.
> >>The solution is simply to clean out busybox after reconfiguring to
> >>ensure
> >>that everything is rebuilt.
>
David McCullough wrote:
Jivin Steve Bennett lays it down ...
This often (always?) happens if you reconfigure busybox and rebuild.
The solution is simply to clean out busybox after reconfiguring to
ensure
that everything is rebuilt.
$ make user/busybox_clean
The code in user/busbox/Makefil
Jivin Steve Bennett lays it down ...
> Hi Bob,
>
> This often (always?) happens if you reconfigure busybox and rebuild.
> The solution is simply to clean out busybox after reconfiguring to
> ensure
> that everything is rebuilt.
>
> $ make user/busybox_clean
The code in user/busbox/Makefile is
Hi Bob,
This often (always?) happens if you reconfigure busybox and rebuild.
The solution is simply to clean out busybox after reconfiguring to
ensure
that everything is rebuilt.
$ make user/busybox_clean
Cheers,
Steve
On 22/02/2007, at 10:45 AM, Robert S. Grimes wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure,
Hi,
I'm not sure, but it seems BusyBox is difficult to build. I don't
really know what is going on, but here's my experience so far.
The first time I attempted to build uClinux (uClinux-dist-20070130,
target board M5329EVB, ColdFire 5329), I selected a goodly number of
BusyBox "commands".
13 matches
Mail list logo
