[ntp:hackers] Somewhat cross-compile: non-standard include files
hmurray at megapathdsl.net
Sun Sep 13 20:46:57 UTC 2009
stenn at ntp.org said:
> You will probably need to do something with CPPFLAGS and -I- .
> I've tried to be careful about keeping -I stuff in CPPFLAGS and not in
> CFLAGS, if you find places that have been missed please lemme know.
Thanks, but I think I'm missing the big picture.
For my usage, you guys have set things up nicely and protected me from all
the details. I (mostly?) don't have to understand what bootstrap, configure
and make are doing. They just work.
I think I understand the idea behind cross-compiling but I've never had to
worry about the details. The last time I did cross-compiling was a few years
ago. Somebody else set it up. All I had to do was type "make" and then copy
over the bits that were produced.
I think ntpd gets cross-compiled reasonably often. How do people do that?
I'd expect a FAQ or HOWTO or Wiki Page, and probably some support from all
the normal scripts.
Should I be looking for general cross-compile info rather than something
specific for ntp?
Does everybody who wants to build ntp on a non-mainline environment have to
port it to their own cross-compile setup? If so, that would discourage
people from updating to recent versions. What can we do to help them?
I normally set things up by running some combination of bk clone/pull, then
bootstrap or unpacking a tar file.
Then I run ./configure --with-args and make
configure creates config.h and various Makefiles
make does the compiles and links, but the compiles all depend upon config.h
so I've been assuming that whatever I do (manual edit?) to the Makefiles also
has to be done to configure so that it will use the right include files when
making config.h. That feels like somebody has probably done it already.
There is stuff in configure that looks interesting, in particular includedir
seems close to what I want. Does it work? If not, why is all that stuff
If yes, does it do what I want? Or what does it do? Is there any
documentation beyond reading the code?
Is this just the beginning of something that never got fully implemented?
It's quite possible that my best approach is to procrastinate. (I'm good at
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
More information about the hackers