6 ms·

I'm honestly impressed by how...well it works. Considering it's building an entire, totally custom Linux distro from scratch it requires a surprisingly little a

• bibabaloo 2y ago
  I agree. I don't understand how people prefer buildroot. Buildroot feels like an adhoc system of glued together Makefiles, whereas yocto actually feels like it was built for purpose.
  • xedrac 2y ago
    Yocto feels like a ball of mud duct taped together, but thankfully has good documentation. It reminds me of CMake. Buildroot is nice for relatively simple situations. Nixos is arguably better than both.
    • ahartmetz 2y ago
      Their idiosyncrasies may look similar, but CMake has a much stronger skeleton of core algorithms and data structures for a build system than Bitbake. Specifically, as I mentioned in another reply, Bitbake does not model dependencies correctly. CMake does.
      • nrclark 2y ago
        Can you elaborate a bit on the dependency-handling topic? I've always thought that Bitbake's dependency handling worked pretty well. It only has package-level granularity, but is quite good within that context.
        • ahartmetz 2y ago
          As of five years ago when I last used it: Bitbake doesn't model all changes that affect packages, so after certain changes, some packages that should be rebuilt, aren't. It is especially prone to happen when changing Bitbake variables (example: MACHINE_FEATURES), and these are a quite common way to change things about the image being built.