ja, manchmal ergibt es sich anders als man denkt
*Kapodaster gestartet*

Bye
Sven

Gruß,
Matthias

Migrating a Windows 2003 computer almost made me cry. Your article solved my problem.

you are right. For many developers this seems to be a good idea but would need some packaging and distribution mechanism included.

For our project, which is under heavy development, it’s better when everybody (including the automated build box) can build an up-to-date toolchain without having root permissions (until we consider a Linearo GCC release as final for project release).

Why a separated toolchain ? Because there are many developers in the team. So the idea is to compile the toolchain at the project start and to distribute it.

If only some user package must be compiled, then the SDK make sense for me.

So seems that we don’t have the same use case

this only would make sense for me if this option would skip the part of compiling device specific stuff like the kernel and userland. But without finding documentation to this feature, its hard for me to tell what it actually does.

For my development it makes no difference where the toolchain is located, because I need two OpenWrt directories to stay up-to-date with the toolchain and on the other side with the device devel stuff.

So if the toolchain is updated in trunk, I want to have this changes in time, so I always have the toolchain lying around – and so, why not using it in a standard way?

I’m also looking to reduce the build time, but started the investigations using the “Build Toolchain” option. The build produce an independent toolchain, available in …/bin. Have you examined this option ?

Actually a have some compilation trouble with the e2fsprogs package, but seems to be an alternative.