emo/busybox
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
8d3c40d492
busybox/coreutils/libcoreutils/Makefile.in

38 lines
1.3 KiB
Makefile
Raw Normal View History

Major coreutils update.
2003-03-19 14:43:01 +05:30
# Makefile for busybox
#
Remove trailing whitespace. Update copyright to include 2004.
2004-03-15 13:59:22 +05:30
# Copyright (C) 1999-2004 by Erik Andersen <andersen@codepoet.org>
Major coreutils update.
2003-03-19 14:43:01 +05:30
#
# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
# the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
# (at your option) any later version.
#
# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
# General Public License for more details.
#
# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
# along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
# Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
#
LIBCOREUTILS_AR:=libcoreutils.a
ifndef $(LIBCOREUTILS_DIR)
egor duda writes: Hi! I've created a patch to busybox' build system to allow building it in separate tree in a manner similar to kbuild from kernel version 2.6. That is, one runs command like 'make O=/build/some/where/for/specific/target/and/options' and everything is built in this exact directory, provided that it exists. I understand that applyingc such invasive changes during 'release candidates' stage of development is at best unwise. So, i'm currently asking for comments about this patch, starting from whether such thing is needed at all to whether it coded properly. 'make check' should work now, and one make creates Makefile in build directory, so one can run 'make' in build directory after that. One possible caveat is that if we build in some directory other than source one, the source directory should be 'distclean'ed first. egor
2004-10-08 13:16:08 +05:30
LIBCOREUTILS_DIR:=$(top_builddir)/coreutils/libcoreutils/
Major coreutils update.
2003-03-19 14:43:01 +05:30
endif
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
2004-10-08 13:16:08 +05:30
srcdir=$(top_srcdir)/coreutils/libcoreutils
Major coreutils update.
2003-03-19 14:43:01 +05:30
Don't comment warnings. Don't put #warnings about warnings. _FIX_ warnings. This fixes the warning, and makes the binary smaller out of sheer pique. (Yes, since Manuel did this one it's nice tight code that took several attempts to shrink, but I was ticked.) Add the start of a test for uniq; this is about the first 1/3 of the tests we need for full susv3 coverage of uniq.
2005-09-07 09:48:36 +05:30
LIBCOREUTILS_SRC:= cp_mv_stat.c getopt_mk_fifo_nod.c
Major coreutils update.
2003-03-19 14:43:01 +05:30
LIBCOREUTILS_OBJS=$(patsubst %.c,$(LIBCOREUTILS_DIR)%.o, $(LIBCOREUTILS_SRC))
libraries-y+=$(LIBCOREUTILS_DIR)$(LIBCOREUTILS_AR)
$(LIBCOREUTILS_DIR)$(LIBCOREUTILS_AR): $(LIBCOREUTILS_OBJS)
use toplevel ARFLAGS and update default ARFLAGS to be quiet
2005-07-27 06:39:24 +05:30
$(AR) $(ARFLAGS) $@ $(LIBCOREUTILS_OBJS)
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
2004-10-08 13:16:08 +05:30
$(LIBCOREUTILS_DIR)%.o: $(srcdir)/%.c
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(EXTRA_CFLAGS) -c -o $@ $<
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink