[Buildroot] [PATCH 0/5] Move download links away from Google Code

[Buildroot] [PATCH 0/5] Move download links away from Google Code

[Alan Ott]

With Google Code going away early next year. Remove download links from
Google Code and find the new official repos for those projects.

These patches came from Buildroot Dev Days in Dublin. There will be more
to come to clean up the other projects using Google Code.

Alan Ott (5):
  dsp-tools: Move download link away from Google Code
  gst-dsp: Move download link away from Google Code
  gst-omapfb: Move download link away from Google Code
  gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD
  gmock: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD

 package/dsp-tools/dsp-tools.mk             |  4 ++--
 package/gmock/0001-force-use-python2.patch |  8 ++++----
 package/gmock/gmock.hash                   |  4 ++--
 package/gmock/gmock.mk                     | 31 ++++++++++--------------------
 package/gstreamer/gst-dsp/gst-dsp.mk       |  4 ++--
 package/gstreamer/gst-omapfb/gst-omapfb.mk |  4 ++--
 package/gtest/gtest.hash                   |  4 ++--
 package/gtest/gtest.mk                     | 19 ++++++++----------
 8 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)

-- 
2.1.4

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/5] dsp-tools: Move download link away from Google Code

[Alan Ott]

Google Code is being shut down. The google code site which hosts the
source .tar.gz references github/felipec, which has a dsp-tools repository
with the same code as the tar.gz previously referenced.

Change the DSP_TOOLS_SITE to this github repo.

Signed-off-by: Alan Ott <alan@softiron.co.uk>
---
 package/dsp-tools/dsp-tools.mk | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/package/dsp-tools/dsp-tools.mk b/package/dsp-tools/dsp-tools.mk
index 64490b8..c91ed20 100644
--- a/package/dsp-tools/dsp-tools.mk
+++ b/package/dsp-tools/dsp-tools.mk
@@ -4,8 +4,8 @@
 #
 ################################################################################
 
-DSP_TOOLS_VERSION = 2.0
-DSP_TOOLS_SITE = http://gst-dsp.googlecode.com/files
+DSP_TOOLS_VERSION = v2.0
+DSP_TOOLS_SITE = $(call github,felipec,dsp-tools,$(DSP_TOOLS_VERSION))
 DSP_TOOLS_DEPENDENCIES = tidsp-binaries
 DSP_TOOLS_LICENSE = LGPLv2.1
 DSP_TOOLS_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE
-- 
2.1.4

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/5] gst-dsp: Move download link away from Google Code

[Alan Ott]

Google Code is being shut down. The google code site which hosts the
source .tar.gz references github/felipec, which has a gst-dsp repository
with the same code as the tar.gz previously referenced.

Change the GST_DSP_SITE to this github repo.

Signed-off-by: Alan Ott <alan@softiron.co.uk>
---
 package/gstreamer/gst-dsp/gst-dsp.mk | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/package/gstreamer/gst-dsp/gst-dsp.mk b/package/gstreamer/gst-dsp/gst-dsp.mk
index d9e202d..dedffb9 100644
--- a/package/gstreamer/gst-dsp/gst-dsp.mk
+++ b/package/gstreamer/gst-dsp/gst-dsp.mk
@@ -4,8 +4,8 @@
 #
 ################################################################################
 
-GST_DSP_VERSION = 0.10.2
-GST_DSP_SITE = http://gst-dsp.googlecode.com/files
+GST_DSP_VERSION = v0.10.2
+GST_DSP_SITE = $(call github,felipec,gst-dsp,$(GST_DSP_VERSION))
 
 define GST_DSP_BUILD_CMDS
 	$(TARGET_CONFIGURE_OPTS) $(MAKE) -C $(@D) -e
-- 
2.1.4

[Buildroot] [PATCH 3/5] gst-omapfb: Move download link away from Google Code

[Alan Ott]

Google Code is being shut down. The google code site which hosts the
source .tar.gz references github/felipec, which has a gst-omapfb
repository with the same code as the tar.gz previously referenced.

Change the GST_OMAPFB_SITE to this github repo.

Signed-off-by: Alan Ott <alan@softiron.co.uk>
---
 package/gstreamer/gst-omapfb/gst-omapfb.mk | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/package/gstreamer/gst-omapfb/gst-omapfb.mk b/package/gstreamer/gst-omapfb/gst-omapfb.mk
index bd545f9..c0bf690 100644
--- a/package/gstreamer/gst-omapfb/gst-omapfb.mk
+++ b/package/gstreamer/gst-omapfb/gst-omapfb.mk
@@ -4,8 +4,8 @@
 #
 ################################################################################
 
-GST_OMAPFB_VERSION = 1.0
-GST_OMAPFB_SITE = http://gst-dsp.googlecode.com/files
+GST_OMAPFB_VERSION = v1.0
+GST_OMAPFB_SITE = $(call github,felipec,gst-omapfb,$(GST_OMAPFB_VERSION))
 
 define GST_OMAPFB_BUILD_CMDS
 	$(TARGET_CONFIGURE_OPTS) $(MAKE) -C $(@D) -e
-- 
2.1.4

[Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD

[Alan Ott]

Google Code is being shut down. The google code site which hosts the
source .zip for gtest references github.com/google/googletest, but that
repo does not have the same code underneath the versioned tags as the
google code repo.  For this reason It was decided by Peter Korsgaard and I
to upgrade to the current HEAD. The current HEAD is laid out
differently (with gtest and gmock combined into the same repo).

Change the GTEST_SITE to this new github repo, fix the version, fix the
paths, and remove the custom extraction commands.

Signed-off-by: Alan Ott <alan@softiron.co.uk>
---
 package/gtest/gtest.hash |  4 ++--
 package/gtest/gtest.mk   | 19 ++++++++-----------
 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/package/gtest/gtest.hash b/package/gtest/gtest.hash
index 8ff79cb..af6a25a 100644
--- a/package/gtest/gtest.hash
+++ b/package/gtest/gtest.hash
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
-# From http://code.google.com/p/googletest/downloads/detail?name=gtest-1.7.0.zip&can=2&q=
-sha1	f85f6d2481e2c6c4a18539e391aa4ea8ab0394af	gtest-1.7.0.zip
+# Locally computed:
+sha256	58d1b6118176b527301c03010b7cb709b7c4b729078a55e4bb3341dfb40f5834	gtest-7f4448f40b3f3f16a75787c016139511579367ed.tar.gz
diff --git a/package/gtest/gtest.mk b/package/gtest/gtest.mk
index da08621..6894f73 100644
--- a/package/gtest/gtest.mk
+++ b/package/gtest/gtest.mk
@@ -5,13 +5,14 @@
 ################################################################################
 
 # Make sure this remains the same version as the gmock one
-GTEST_VERSION = 1.7.0
-GTEST_SOURCE = gtest-$(GTEST_VERSION).zip
-GTEST_SITE = http://googletest.googlecode.com/files
+GTEST_VERSION = 7f4448f40b3f3f16a75787c016139511579367ed
+# The above revision must remain the same as the gmock package
+GTEST_SITE = $(call github,google,googletest,$(GTEST_VERSION))
 GTEST_INSTALL_STAGING = YES
 GTEST_INSTALL_TARGET = NO
 GTEST_LICENSE = BSD-3c
 GTEST_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE
+GTEST_SUBDIR = googletest
 
 # While it is possible to build gtest as shared library, using this gtest shared
 # library requires to set some special configure option in the project using
@@ -22,15 +23,11 @@ GTEST_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE
 # the gtest sources.
 GTEST_CONF_OPTS = -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=OFF
 
-define GTEST_EXTRACT_CMDS
-	$(UNZIP) $(DL_DIR)/$(GTEST_SOURCE) -d $(BUILD_DIR)
-endef
-
 define GTEST_INSTALL_STAGING_CMDS
-	$(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/libgtest.a $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib/libgtest.a
-	$(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/libgtest_main.a $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib/libgtest_main.a
+	$(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/$(GTEST_SUBDIR)/libgtest.a $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib/libgtest.a
+	$(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/$(GTEST_SUBDIR)/libgtest_main.a $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib/libgtest_main.a
 	$(INSTALL) -d -m 0755 $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include/gtest/
-	cp -rp $(@D)/include/gtest/* $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include/gtest/
+	cp -rp $(@D)/$(GTEST_SUBDIR)/include/gtest/* $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include/gtest/
 	# Generate the gtest-config script manually, since the CMake
 	# build system is not doing it.
 	sed 's%@PACKAGE_TARNAME@%gtest%;\
@@ -42,7 +39,7 @@ define GTEST_INSTALL_STAGING_CMDS
 		s%@bindir@%$(STAGING_DIR)/usr/bin%;\
 		s%@PTHREAD_CFLAGS@%%;\
 		s%@PTHREAD_LIBS@%-lpthread%;' \
-		$(@D)/scripts/gtest-config.in \
+		$(@D)/$(GTEST_SUBDIR)/scripts/gtest-config.in \
 		> $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/bin/gtest-config
 	chmod +x $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/bin/gtest-config
 endef
-- 
2.1.4

[Buildroot] [PATCH 5/5] gmock: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD

[Alan Ott]

Google Code is being shut down. The google code site which hosts the
source .zip for gmock references github.com/google/googletest, but that
repo does not have the same code underneath the versioned tags as the
google code repo.  For this reason It was decided by Peter Korsgaard and I
to upgrade to the current HEAD. The current HEAD is laid out
differently (with gtest and gmock combined into the same repo).

Change the GMOCK_SITE to this new github repo, fix the version, fix the
paths, and remove the custom extraction commands.

Signed-off-by: Alan Ott <alan@softiron.co.uk>
---
 package/gmock/0001-force-use-python2.patch |  8 ++++----
 package/gmock/gmock.hash                   |  4 ++--
 package/gmock/gmock.mk                     | 31 ++++++++++--------------------
 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

diff --git a/package/gmock/0001-force-use-python2.patch b/package/gmock/0001-force-use-python2.patch
index 5dcb231..b975bc3 100644
--- a/package/gmock/0001-force-use-python2.patch
+++ b/package/gmock/0001-force-use-python2.patch
@@ -2,16 +2,16 @@ Force use of Python 2 even when Python 3 is the default Python interpreter.
 
 Signed-off-by: Carlos Santos <casantos@datacom.ind.br>
 
---- ./gtest/scripts/fuse_gtest_files.py.orig	2013-09-18 14:48:30.000000000 -0300
-+++ ./gtest/scripts/fuse_gtest_files.py	2015-07-22 15:42:53.291591205 -0300
+--- ./googletest/scripts/fuse_gtest_files.py.orig	2013-09-18 14:48:30.000000000 -0300
++++ ./googletest/scripts/fuse_gtest_files.py	2015-07-22 15:42:53.291591205 -0300
 @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
 -#!/usr/bin/env python
 +#!/usr/bin/env python2
  #
  # Copyright 2009, Google Inc.
  # All rights reserved.
---- ./scripts/generator/gmock_gen.py.orig	2013-09-18 14:50:15.000000000 -0300
-+++ ./scripts/generator/gmock_gen.py	2015-07-22 17:06:51.071815634 -0300
+--- ./googlemock/scripts/generator/gmock_gen.py.orig	2013-09-18 14:50:15.000000000 -0300
++++ ./googlemock/scripts/generator/gmock_gen.py	2015-07-22 17:06:51.071815634 -0300
 @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
 -#!/usr/bin/env python
 +#!/usr/bin/env python2
diff --git a/package/gmock/gmock.hash b/package/gmock/gmock.hash
index 2b71739..f830abf 100644
--- a/package/gmock/gmock.hash
+++ b/package/gmock/gmock.hash
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
-# Locally computed
-sha256 26fcbb5925b74ad5fc8c26b0495dfc96353f4d553492eb97e85a8a6d2f43095b  gmock-1.7.0.zip
+# Locally computed:
+sha256	58d1b6118176b527301c03010b7cb709b7c4b729078a55e4bb3341dfb40f5834	gmock-7f4448f40b3f3f16a75787c016139511579367ed.tar.gz
diff --git a/package/gmock/gmock.mk b/package/gmock/gmock.mk
index a0351d0..e94d086 100644
--- a/package/gmock/gmock.mk
+++ b/package/gmock/gmock.mk
@@ -5,14 +5,16 @@
 ################################################################################
 
 # Make sure this remains the same version as the gtest one
-GMOCK_VERSION = 1.7.0
-GMOCK_SOURCE = gmock-$(GMOCK_VERSION).zip
-GMOCK_SITE = http://googlemock.googlecode.com/files
+GMOCK_VERSION = 7f4448f40b3f3f16a75787c016139511579367ed
+# The above revision must remain the same as the gtest package
+GMOCK_SITE = $(call github,google,googletest,$(GMOCK_VERSION))
 GMOCK_INSTALL_STAGING = YES
 GMOCK_INSTALL_TARGET = NO
 GMOCK_LICENSE = BSD-3c
 GMOCK_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE
 GMOCK_DEPENDENCIES = gtest host-gmock
+GMOCK_AUTORECONF = YES
+GMOCK_SUBDIR = googlemock
 
 # GMock 1.7.0 relies on Python 2.7 syntax which is NOT compatible with Python3.
 HOST_GMOCK_DEPENDENCIES = host-python
@@ -26,34 +28,21 @@ HOST_GMOCK_PYTHONPATH=$(HOST_DIR)/usr/lib/python$(PYTHON_VERSION_MAJOR)/site-pac
 #    set up necessary compiler settings".
 GMOCK_CONF_OPTS = --enable-static --disable-shared
 
-define GMOCK_EXTRACT_CMDS
-	$(UNZIP) $(DL_DIR)/$(GMOCK_SOURCE) -d $(BUILD_DIR)
-endef
-
 # We can't use the default rule for autotools-package staging because it fails
 # because it tries to rebuild/install gtest stuff and fails after this error:
 #    "'make install' is dangerous and not supported. Instead, see README for
 #      how to integrate Google Test into your build system."
 define GMOCK_INSTALL_STAGING_CMDS
-	$(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/lib/.libs/libgmock.a $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib/libgmock.a
-	$(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/lib/.libs/libgmock_main.a $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib/libgmock_main.a
+	$(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/$(GMOCK_SUBDIR)/lib/.libs/libgmock.a $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib/libgmock.a
+	$(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/$(GMOCK_SUBDIR)/lib/.libs/libgmock_main.a $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib/libgmock_main.a
 	$(INSTALL) -d -m 0755 $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include/gmock/
-	cp -rp $(@D)/include/gmock/* $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include/gmock/
-endef
-
-# Unzipping inside $(@D) and moving everything from the created subdirectory is
-# required because unzipping directly in $(BUILD_DIR) would cause host-gmock to
-# overwrite the gmock subdir instead of unzipping in a host-gmock subdir.
-define HOST_GMOCK_EXTRACT_CMDS
-	$(UNZIP) $(DL_DIR)/$(GMOCK_SOURCE) -d $(@D)
-	mv $(@D)/gmock-$(GMOCK_VERSION)/* $(@D)
-	rmdir $(@D)/gmock-$(GMOCK_VERSION)
+	cp -rp $(@D)/$(GMOCK_SUBDIR)/include/gmock/* $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include/gmock/
 endef
 
 define HOST_GMOCK_INSTALL_CMDS
-	$(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/scripts/generator/gmock_gen.py $(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin/gmock_gen.py
+	$(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/$(GMOCK_SUBDIR)/scripts/generator/gmock_gen.py $(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin/gmock_gen.py
 	ln -sf gmock_gen.py $(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin/gmock_gen
-	cp -rp $(@D)/scripts/generator/cpp $(HOST_GMOCK_PYTHONPATH)
+	cp -rp $(@D)/$(GMOCK_SUBDIR)/scripts/generator/cpp $(HOST_GMOCK_PYTHONPATH)
 endef
 
 $(eval $(autotools-package))
-- 
2.1.4

[Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Alan,

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:51:22 -0400, Alan Ott wrote:

> +# The above revision must remain the same as the gmock package
> +GTEST_SITE = $(call github,google,googletest,$(GTEST_VERSION))
>  GTEST_INSTALL_STAGING = YES
>  GTEST_INSTALL_TARGET = NO
>  GTEST_LICENSE = BSD-3c
>  GTEST_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE
> +GTEST_SUBDIR = googletest

So gtest and gmock are in fact now part of the same repository/upstream
project ? If that's the case, then I think we should simply get rid of
the gtest and gmock packages, and have a single package named
"googletest".

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 0/5] Move download links away from Google Code

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Alan Ott,

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:51:18 -0400, Alan Ott wrote:

> Alan Ott (5):
>   dsp-tools: Move download link away from Google Code
>   gst-dsp: Move download link away from Google Code
>   gst-omapfb: Move download link away from Google Code

These three look good, but can you also add the hash files while you're
at it?

Thanks!

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD

[Alan Ott]

On 10/14/2015 05:55 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:51:22 -0400, Alan Ott wrote:
>
>> +# The above revision must remain the same as the gmock package
>> +GTEST_SITE = $(call github,google,googletest,$(GTEST_VERSION))
>>   GTEST_INSTALL_STAGING = YES
>>   GTEST_INSTALL_TARGET = NO
>>   GTEST_LICENSE = BSD-3c
>>   GTEST_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE
>> +GTEST_SUBDIR = googletest
> So gtest and gmock are in fact now part of the same repository/upstream
> project ? If that's the case, then I think we should simply get rid of
> the gtest and gmock packages, and have a single package named
> "googletest".

Yes, that would probably be better. gmock depends on gtest, and gtest 
can be standalone. Maybe we have one package with a submenu option to 
build each target (and a dependency so gmock selects gtest).

Is that ok by you?

Alan.

[Buildroot] [PATCH 0/5] Move download links away from Google Code

[Alan Ott]

On 10/14/2015 05:56 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:51:18 -0400, Alan Ott wrote:
>
>> Alan Ott (5):
>>    dsp-tools: Move download link away from Google Code
>>    gst-dsp: Move download link away from Google Code
>>    gst-omapfb: Move download link away from Google Code
> These three look good, but can you also add the hash files while you're
> at it?

Yes, will add.

Alan.

[Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Alan Ott,

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:00:44 -0400, Alan Ott wrote:

> > So gtest and gmock are in fact now part of the same repository/upstream
> > project ? If that's the case, then I think we should simply get rid of
> > the gtest and gmock packages, and have a single package named
> > "googletest".
> 
> Yes, that would probably be better. gmock depends on gtest, and gtest 
> can be standalone. Maybe we have one package with a submenu option to 
> build each target (and a dependency so gmock selects gtest).
> 
> Is that ok by you?

Yes, that's OK.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD

[Carlos Santos]

Hello, Thomas and Alan,

> From: "Alan Ott" <alan@softiron.co.uk>
> To: "Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
> Cc: buildroot at buildroot.org
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 7:00:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD

> On 10/14/2015 05:55 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:51:22 -0400, Alan Ott wrote:
>>
>>> +# The above revision must remain the same as the gmock package
>>> +GTEST_SITE = $(call github,google,googletest,$(GTEST_VERSION))
>>>   GTEST_INSTALL_STAGING = YES
>>>   GTEST_INSTALL_TARGET = NO
>>>   GTEST_LICENSE = BSD-3c
>>>   GTEST_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE
>>> +GTEST_SUBDIR = googletest
>> So gtest and gmock are in fact now part of the same repository/upstream
>> project ? If that's the case, then I think we should simply get rid of
>> the gtest and gmock packages, and have a single package named
>> "googletest".

What about applying the submitted patches now, to fix the repository, and a different patch later to create the "googletest" package?

> Yes, that would probably be better. gmock depends on gtest, and gtest
> can be standalone. Maybe we have one package with a submenu option to
> build each target (and a dependency so gmock selects gtest).
> 
> Is that ok by you?
> 
> Alan.

Do you need any help to do this?

Carlos Santos (Casantos)
DATACOM, P&D

[Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD

[Carlos Santos]

> From: "Carlos Santos" <casantos@datacom.ind.br>
> To: "Alan Ott" <alan@softiron.co.uk>
> Cc: "Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>, buildroot at buildroot.org
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 5:29:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD

> Hello, Thomas and Alan,
> 
>> From: "Alan Ott" <alan@softiron.co.uk>
>> To: "Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
>> Cc: buildroot at buildroot.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 7:00:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD
> 
>> On 10/14/2015 05:55 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:51:22 -0400, Alan Ott wrote:
>>>
>>>> +# The above revision must remain the same as the gmock package
>>>> +GTEST_SITE = $(call github,google,googletest,$(GTEST_VERSION))
>>>>   GTEST_INSTALL_STAGING = YES
>>>>   GTEST_INSTALL_TARGET = NO
>>>>   GTEST_LICENSE = BSD-3c
>>>>   GTEST_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE
>>>> +GTEST_SUBDIR = googletest
>>> So gtest and gmock are in fact now part of the same repository/upstream
>>> project ? If that's the case, then I think we should simply get rid of
>>> the gtest and gmock packages, and have a single package named
>>> "googletest".
> 
> What about applying the submitted patches now, to fix the repository, and a
> different patch later to create the "googletest" package?
> 
>> Yes, that would probably be better. gmock depends on gtest, and gtest
>> can be standalone. Maybe we have one package with a submenu option to
>> build each target (and a dependency so gmock selects gtest).
>> 
>> Is that ok by you?
>> 
>> Alan.
> 
> Do you need any help to do this?

Hello Alan,

I noticed that this patch set is still in "Changes Requested" state. Is there anything I can do to help?

Carlos Santos (Casantos)
DATACOM, P&D

[Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:17:12 -0200 (BRST), Carlos Santos wrote:

> Hello Alan,
> 
> I noticed that this patch set is still in "Changes Requested" state. Is there anything I can do to help?

You can take over the patch, make the necessary changes and post an
updated version of it.

If your changes are limited, it is customary to keep the original
author as the author of the patch.

If your changes are really major and essentially rewrite the whole
patch, then you can re-assign the authorship of the patch to you, but
keep a reference to the original author in the commit log.

It is definitely more than welcome to pick up old patches for which
changes were requested, but whose author didn't had the time to
implement.

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD

[Alan Ott]

On February 17, 2016 1:50:23 PM MST, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>
>On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:17:12 -0200 (BRST), Carlos Santos wrote:
>
>> Hello Alan,
>> 
>> I noticed that this patch set is still in "Changes Requested" state.
>Is there anything I can do to help?
>
>You can take over the patch, make the necessary changes and post an
>updated version of it.
>
>If your changes are limited, it is customary to keep the original
>author as the author of the patch.
>
>If your changes are really major and essentially rewrite the whole
>patch, then you can re-assign the authorship of the patch to you, but
>keep a reference to the original author in the commit log.
>
>It is definitely more than welcome to pick up old patches for which
>changes were requested, but whose author didn't had the time to
>implement.
>

Hi Carlos, I agree. I ran out of time on this, unfortunately :( .Have a look at the original comments from Thomas here:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530390/

As far as a authorship, the changes requested are significant enough that you can take my authorship off. I don't mind.

Alan. 

[Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD

[Carlos Santos]

> From: "Alan Ott" <alan@softiron.co.uk>
> To: "Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>, "Carlos Santos" <casantos@datacom.ind.br>
> Cc: buildroot at buildroot.org
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 10:13:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD

> On February 17, 2016 1:50:23 PM MST, Thomas Petazzoni
> <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:17:12 -0200 (BRST), Carlos Santos wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Alan,
>>> 
>>> I noticed that this patch set is still in "Changes Requested" state.
>>Is there anything I can do to help?
>>
>>You can take over the patch, make the necessary changes and post an
>>updated version of it.
>>
>>If your changes are limited, it is customary to keep the original
>>author as the author of the patch.
>>
>>If your changes are really major and essentially rewrite the whole
>>patch, then you can re-assign the authorship of the patch to you, but
>>keep a reference to the original author in the commit log.
>>
>>It is definitely more than welcome to pick up old patches for which
>>changes were requested, but whose author didn't had the time to
>>implement.
>>
> 
> Hi Carlos, I agree. I ran out of time on this, unfortunately :( .Have a look at
> the original comments from Thomas here:
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530390/
> 
> As far as a authorship, the changes requested are significant enough that you
> can take my authorship off. I don't mind.
> 
> Alan.

Alan/Thomas,

I propose doing this in three steps:

1. Submit a patchset that replaces the sites from googlecode.com to github, maintaining the same package versions (including gtest and gmock, that would be left at version 1.7.0).

This change is easy to apply and could even be brought to the impending Buildroot 2016.02, IMO, since it does not change the package versions, only reduces the risk of build failures due to problems in googlecode.com (I consider this a bug fix). The patchset would update the following patches:

    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530387/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530388/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530389/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530390/
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530391/


2. Submit a patchset that replaces packages gtest and gmock by a "googletest" package, as suggested by Thomas. This change is quite disruptive for us at DATACOM because it may require changing the recipes that we maintain in $(BR2_EXTERNAL), so I humbly ask you to postpone the change.

3. Submit a patchset that upgrades googletest to a newer release, hopefully v1.8.0, or to the current HEAD, as decided by Peter Korsgaard and Alan. I will do this after ensuring that the change does not break anything.

Do you agree?

Carlos Santos (Casantos)
DATACOM, P&D

[Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:14:26 -0200 (BRST), Carlos Santos wrote:

> 1. Submit a patchset that replaces the sites from googlecode.com to github, maintaining the same package versions (including gtest and gmock, that would be left at version 1.7.0).
> 
> This change is easy to apply and could even be brought to the impending Buildroot 2016.02, IMO, since it does not change the package versions, only reduces the risk of build failures due to problems in googlecode.com (I consider this a bug fix). The patchset would update the following patches:
> 
>     http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530387/
>     http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530388/
>     http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530389/
>     http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530390/
>     http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530391/
> 
> 
> 2. Submit a patchset that replaces packages gtest and gmock by a "googletest" package, as suggested by Thomas. This change is quite disruptive for us at DATACOM because it may require changing the recipes that we maintain in $(BR2_EXTERNAL), so I humbly ask you to postpone the change.
> 
> 3. Submit a patchset that upgrades googletest to a newer release, hopefully v1.8.0, or to the current HEAD, as decided by Peter Korsgaard and Alan. I will do this after ensuring that the change does not break anything.

Sounds good. Note that (1), (2) and (3) could also be part of the same
patch series if you wish. But it's fine to have (1) first, wait to get
it merge, and only then continue with (2) and (3).

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD

[Carlos Santos]

> From: "Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
> To: "Carlos Santos" <casantos@datacom.ind.br>
> Cc: "Alan Ott" <alan@softiron.co.uk>, buildroot at buildroot.org
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 2:18:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD

> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:14:26 -0200 (BRST), Carlos Santos wrote:
> 
>> 1. Submit a patchset that replaces the sites from googlecode.com to github,
>> maintaining the same package versions (including gtest and gmock, that would be
>> left at version 1.7.0).
>> 
>> This change is easy to apply and could even be brought to the impending
>> Buildroot 2016.02, IMO, since it does not change the package versions, only
>> reduces the risk of build failures due to problems in googlecode.com (I
>> consider this a bug fix). The patchset would update the following patches:
>> 
>>     http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530387/
>>     http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530388/
>>     http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530389/
>>     http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530390/
>>     http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530391/
>> 
>> 
>> 2. Submit a patchset that replaces packages gtest and gmock by a "googletest"
>> package, as suggested by Thomas. This change is quite disruptive for us at
>> DATACOM because it may require changing the recipes that we maintain in
>> $(BR2_EXTERNAL), so I humbly ask you to postpone the change.
>> 
>> 3. Submit a patchset that upgrades googletest to a newer release, hopefully
>> v1.8.0, or to the current HEAD, as decided by Peter Korsgaard and Alan. I will
>> do this after ensuring that the change does not break anything.
> 
> Sounds good. Note that (1), (2) and (3) could also be part of the same
> patch series if you wish. But it's fine to have (1) first, wait to get
> it merge, and only then continue with (2) and (3).

Thomas,

Considering that my work will focus on GTest/GMock I thing that patches 530387 through 530389 can be applied, leaving 530390 and 530391 in "Changes Requested" state. Do you agree?

Carlos Santos (Casantos)
DATACOM, P&D