Hi all,

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:

include $(TOPDIR)/rules.mk




include $(INCLUDE_DIR)/package.mk

define Package/myserver
    TITLE:=MyServer is a powerful and easy to configure web server

define Package/myserver/description
    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!

define Build/Configure
    $(call Build/Configure/Default)

define Package/myserver/install
    $(INSTALL_DIR) $(1)/usr/bin
    $(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[1]: Entering directory `/home/erik/sandbox/ben/openwrt-xburst'
make[1]: *** No rule to make target `package/myserver/compile'.  Stop.
make[1]: 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 battles.

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  :)

Thanks again.