Porting GNU MyServer - stuck with a broken Makefile, what am I missing? (plus a small side note about open source evangelism)
erik.kugel at gmail.com
Thu May 27 23:24:35 EDT 2010
I'm writing to ask for help with a Makefile I'm trying to create for GNU's
MyServer. I'm hoping this will be my first successful try at porting for the
Ben, but I'm currently stuck with a broken Makefile.
I've naively modified the OpenWRT example and got the following:
TITLE:=MyServer is a powerful and easy to configure web server
MyServer is a powerful and easy to configure web server.
Its multi-threaded architecture makes it extremely scalable and
usable in large scale sites as well as in small networks, it has
a lot of built-in features. Share your files in minutes!
$(INSTALL_BIN) $(PKG_BUILD_DIR)/myserver/myserver $(1)/usr/sbin/
$(eval $(call BuildPackage,myserver))
... But, when I try:
$ make package/myserver/compile V=99
I get errors to fix the Makefile:
ERROR: please fix package/myserver/Makefile
Collecting package info: done
ERROR: please fix target/linux/mx2/Makefile
Collecting target info: done
make: Entering directory `/home/erik/sandbox/ben/openwrt-xburst'
make: *** No rule to make target `package/myserver/compile'. Stop.
make: Leaving directory `/home/erik/sandbox/ben/openwrt-xburst'
make: *** [package/myserver/compile] Error 2
I've sunk a couple of hours into this tiny Makefile and I'm pretty sure I'm
missing something very basic.
Can anyone have a quick glance?
Thanks in advance!
Sorry to distract from the philosophical discussion about the future of open
hardware and 100% copy-left parts. My 2 cents on it are here: The amount of
propriety locked hardware is so big compared to anything even slightly open
that we (as supporters of more openness in hardware) have to pick our
Right now, the main battle seems to be getting more Bens out there. Until we
do that, all this discussion is purely philosophical. We have to do whatever
it takes so that Qi can sell more Ben's and Ingenic can sell more XBurst
cores. Unfortunately, it might mean adding connectivity which is not 100%
copy-left (if that's what a lot of users want, which appears to be the
case), and not being disappointed about the fact your processing core is
patented (which ones today aren't ?). Once enough Bens were sold, Copy-Left
would be something that can influence the market. Today, it is only
influenced by it. This is the reality. If you are like me, and dream of one
day using a REALLY open 100% copy-left device, you have to swallow a few
bitter pills to get there. Those pills mean that sometimes your making
compromises. I'm considering myself an open source evangelist. But the Nano
is business/technology, not a religion.
The 500 people (like me) who were passionate about open-source already
bought in. To bring the other 500,000 potential users, we'll have to offer
more than a political agenda or good philosophical arguments. After all,
most of the people on this list are pretty like-minded about openness. The
degree of partisanship may vary. Now lets get people who don't even know
what "source code" means. Then we'll be growing, and that should be our #1
goal as Ben users and copyleftists ;), and for the staff at Qi. I'm sure
they want to be making money too.
Thank you all for your comments, work, and mostly support, and good-luck to
Qi with getting more Ben's out there. I'll start recommending the Ben I got
to everyone I know as soon as it, well, works (not just as in "executing
code"). Until it does, I'll keep fighting those Makefiles :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discussion