最近在用buildroot，不知道有没有什么办法生成ipkg/opkg
最近在用buildroot，不知道有没有什么办法生成ipkg/opkgbuildroot确实好用，更重要的是，能保证编译过程中，宿主机和目标机系统的一致性。
网上看到的很多交叉编译的教程，其实都比较不规范。
现在用buildroot了，编译包的时候轻轻松松，就差一个包管理了。
OpenWrt改进过的buildroot是有类似功能的，不知道原生的buildroot有没有 Buildroot不支持，官方说说明：http://buildroot.org/downloads/manual/manual.html#faq-no-binary-packages：
10.7. Why doesn’t Buildroot generate binary packages (.deb, .ipkg…)?
One feature that is often discussed on the Buildroot list is the general topic of "package management". To summarize, the idea would be to add some tracking of which Buildroot package installs what files, with the goals of:
being able to remove files installed by a package when this package gets unselected from the menuconfig;
being able to generate binary packages (ipk or other format) that can be installed on the target without re-generating a new root filesystem image.
In general, most people think it is easy to do: just track which package installed what and remove it when the package is unselected. However, it is much more complicated than that:
It is not only about the target/ directory, but also the sysroot in host/usr/<tuple>/sysroot and the host/ directory itself. All files installed in those directories by various packages must be tracked.
When a package is unselected from the configuration, it is not sufficient to remove just the files it installed. One must also remove all its reverse dependencies (i.e. packages relying on it) and rebuild all those packages. For example, package A depends optionally on the OpenSSL library. Both are selected, and Buildroot is built. Package A is built with crypto support using OpenSSL. Later on, OpenSSL gets unselected from the configuration, but package A remains (since OpenSSL is an optional dependency, this is possible.) If only OpenSSL files are removed, then the files installed by package A are broken: they use a library that is no longer present on the target. Although this is technically doable, it adds a lot of complexity to Buildroot, which goes against the simplicity we try to stick to.
In addition to the previous problem, there is the case where the optional dependency is not even known to Buildroot. For example, package A in version 1.0 never used OpenSSL, but in version 2.0 it automatically uses OpenSSL if available. If the Buildroot .mk file hasn’t been updated to take this into account, then package A will not be part of the reverse dependencies of OpenSSL and will not be removed and rebuilt when OpenSSL is removed. For sure, the .mk file of package A should be fixed to mention this optional dependency, but in the mean time, you can have non-reproducible behaviors.
The request is to also allow changes in the menuconfig to be applied on the output directory without having to rebuild everything from scratch. However, this is very difficult to achieve in a reliable way: what happens when the suboptions of a package are changed (we would have to detect this, and rebuild the package from scratch and potentially all its reverse dependencies), what happens if toolchain options are changed, etc. At the moment, what Buildroot does is clear and simple so its behaviour is very reliable and it is easy to support users. If configuration changes done in menuconfig are applied after the next make, then it has to work correctly and properly in all situations, and not have some bizarre corner cases. The risk is to get bug reports like "I have enabled package A, B and C, then ran make, then disabled package C and enabled package D and ran make, then re-enabled package C and enabled package E and then there is a build failure". Or worse "I did some configuration, then built, then did some changes, built, some more changes, built, some more changes, built, and now it fails, but I don’t remember all the changes I did and in which order". This will be impossible to support.
For all these reasons, the conclusion is that adding tracking of installed files to remove them when the package is unselected, or to generate a repository of binary packages, is something that is very hard to achieve reliably and will add a lot of complexity.
On this matter, the Buildroot developers make this position statement:
Buildroot strives to make it easy to generate a root filesystem (hence the name, by the way.) That is what we want to make Buildroot good at: building root filesystems.
Buildroot is not meant to be a distribution (or rather, a distribution generator.) It is the opinion of most Buildroot developers that this is not a goal we should pursue. We believe that there are other tools better suited to generate a distro than Buildroot is. For example, Open Embedded, or openWRT, are such tools.
We prefer to push Buildroot in a direction that makes it easy (or even easier) to generate complete root filesystems. This is what makes Buildroot stands out in the crowd (among other things, of course!)
We believe that for most embedded Linux systems, binary packages are not necessary, and potentially harmful. When binary packages are used, it means that the system can be partially upgraded, which creates an enormous number of possible combinations of package versions that should be tested before doing the upgrade on the embedded device. On the other hand, by doing complete system upgrades by upgrading the entire root filesystem image at once, the image deployed to the embedded system is guaranteed to really be the one that has been tested and validated.
用Yocto好了，rpm dpkg opkg任意可以都可以 QQ373466062 发表于 2015-12-4 11:25
Buildroot不支持，官方说说明：http://buildroot.org/downloads/manual/manual.html#faq-no-binary-package ...
下一次试试吧 先用buildroot凑合着用
页:
[1]