[Buildroot] --includedir=/usr/include vs --includedir=(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 08:13:27AM +0200, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
>
>On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 21:36 +0200, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:06:34PM +0200, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
>> >On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Steven J. Hill wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Noticed that some .mk files use different --includedir= configure options.
>> >> > Shouldn't --includedir=/usr/include be used everywhere?
>> >> >
>> >> With the recent changes that buildroot has undergone, I actually think
>> >> this is a good idea. Any objections to getting rid of 'include' in the
>> >> staging directory all together and going to 'usr/include'?
>> >
>> >That's fine with me. But my question was:
>> >
>> >  --includedir=/usr/include vs --includedir=$(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include
>> >                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> depending on the package --prefix=$(STAGING_DIR)/usr
>> is enough and all other (except, perhaps specifying the location of
>> $(STAGING_DIR)/etc) are not needed anymore.
>> 
>> There are indeed quite some packages that are not yet converted. Patches
>> to clean those up are very welcome.
>
>In the same go a cleanup of all libdir variables in lib<name>.la should
>be done? I see some libraries have /usr/lib there, and it can make some
>confusing moments if you have the library installed on the build machine
>as well.

AFAICS yes.

The target_dir .la should use the absolute target-pathes (e.g. /usr/lib)
and the staging_dir .la should use absolute cross-pathes
($(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib for example), yes.

IIRC some packages -- those that are actually used as prerequisites for
other packages in build_ARCH -- already fixup their .la via $(SED).