egor duda writes:
Hi!
I've created a patch to busybox' build system to allow building it in
separate tree in a manner similar to kbuild from kernel version 2.6.
That is, one runs command like
'make O=/build/some/where/for/specific/target/and/options'
and everything is built in this exact directory, provided that it exists.
I understand that applyingc such invasive changes during 'release
candidates' stage of development is at best unwise. So, i'm currently
asking for comments about this patch, starting from whether such thing
is needed at all to whether it coded properly.
'make check' should work now, and one make creates Makefile in build
directory, so one can run 'make' in build directory after that.
One possible caveat is that if we build in some directory other than
source one, the source directory should be 'distclean'ed first.
egor
diff --git a/Rules.mak b/Rules.mak
index 43cf242..63b80f3 100644
--- a/Rules.mak
+++ b/Rules.mak
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@
NM = $(CROSS)nm
STRIP = $(CROSS)strip
CPP = $(CC) -E
-MAKEFILES = $(TOPDIR).config
+# MAKEFILES = $(top_builddir)/.config
# What OS are you compiling busybox for? This allows you to include
# OS specific things, syscall overrides, etc.
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@
#GCCINCDIR:=$(shell gcc -print-search-dirs | sed -ne "s/install: \(.*\)/\1include/gp")
WARNINGS=-Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wshadow
-CFLAGS=-I$(TOPDIR)include
+CFLAGS=-I$(top_builddir)/include -I$(top_srcdir)/include -I$(srcdir)
ARFLAGS=-r
#--------------------------------------------------------
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@
# Pull in the user's busybox configuration
ifeq ($(filter $(noconfig_targets),$(MAKECMDGOALS)),)
--include $(TOPDIR).config
+-include $(top_builddir)/.config
endif
# A nifty macro to make testing gcc features easier
@@ -189,12 +189,8 @@
# have a chance of winning.
CFLAGS += $(CFLAGS_EXTRA)
-%.o: %.c
- $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(EXTRA_CFLAGS) -c -o $@ $<
-
.PHONY: dummy
-
.EXPORT_ALL_VARIABLES: