From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 13:30:03 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [RFCv1 2/4] core: change host RPATH handling In-Reply-To: References: <20171103160627.6468-1-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <20171103160627.6468-3-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <20171105085756.GG2996@scaer> <20171107234118.177ed856@windsurf> <8f6dece3-96bf-d71d-085f-117c92d6447b@mind.be> <20171108095545.64debde9@windsurf> Message-ID: <20171108133003.13a24547@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:55:19 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > >>> To me, this sounds very reasonable. What do you think? > >> > >> 500 files is not a lot if you include staging as well > > > > Why would I include staging? I don't see at all why fixing up RPATH in > > staging after each package build would be necessary. > > The simplest way would be to do find $(HOST_DIR) -type f but that includes staging. Hum, you didn't reply to my question, which was: "Why would we need to fixup RPATHs in STAGING_DIR" ? > >> But $(HOST_DIR)/{bin,sbin,lib} should be enough anyway. > > So this is not true, we also need $(HOST_DIR)/$(GNU_TARGET_NAME)/{bin,lib}. > So then it's perhaps easier to just -prune staging. Absolutely. > > Yes, that was my intent. If needed, we could optimize it by only doing > > the fixup at the end of a host package installation. But since we have > > a few target packages installing host stuff (toolchain, qt, etc.), it > > would require them to explicitly state that they need host rpath > > fixups. Perhaps it's easiest for now to just do the rpath fixup after > > every package installation. > > After every package installation would be better, yes. ACK. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com