From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey Brodkin Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 17:18:45 +0000 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] Binutils: ARC: Fix build failures if makeinfo is missing In-Reply-To: <1465278105.7088.20.camel@synopsys.com> References: <1465211659-23861-1-git-send-email-vzakhar@synopsys.com> <87twh6hzxl.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20160606215833.57396ae8@free-electrons.com> <87fusqgfwi.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <1465278105.7088.20.camel@synopsys.com> Message-ID: <1466011073.11148.25.camel@synopsys.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Peter, Thomas, On Tue, 2016-06-07 at 05:42 +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > Hi Peter, Thomas, > > On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 23:34 +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes: > > ?> Hello, > > ?> On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 21:36:54 +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > > > > ?>> > Signed-off-by: Zakharov Vlad ?? > > ?>>? > > ?>> Committed, thanks. > > > > ?> Why? > > > > It was fixing autobuilder issues and seemed like a sensible fix that > > could be upstreamed. Looking again, I do see that it patched Makefile.in > > and not Makefile.am, so that's not too nice though. > Indeed our goal was to fix an issue that causes all autobuilder jobs for ARC > to fail. The problem is host binutils couldn't be built any longer after we switched > to arc-2016.03 tools. And now we're unblocked. > > As for patching Makefile.in vs Makefile.am again that's just to do a minimal fix > in existing sources. Otherwise if we patch Makefile.am we'll need to regenerate > Makefile.in. > > Even though Vlad has already sent the same patch to Binutils mailing list > (https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2016-06/msg00053.html) that's indeed not > the right fix - he'll need to fix Makefile.am but at least we're moving > in upstreaming direction. > > > > > ?> This problem also exists for other versions of binutils, and also for > > ?> gdb. And we have a patch series from Romain Naour sitting in patchwork > > ?> for several weeks. > Right so I would think as of now the same patch should be applied to other > affected instances of binutils and gdb. > > > > > ?> I don't know if Zlad's version is better or not than Romain's version. > > ?> But at least Romain's version was handling all binutils and gdb > > ?> versions, without patching directly Makefile.in files. So at first > > ?> sight, it looked a lot better than Zlad's version. > > > > Ok, we can always revert if it isn't needed any more once Romain's > > series is applied. > > > In opposite Romain's fix only makes sense for BR and I don't really like that > approach. Why implement hacks on top of > upstream sources that are not > upstreamable at all. Why not try "to fix" generic "missing" script if we do think > it behaves improperly? So it looks like "makeinfo" is really required when building binutils/gdb from git sources, see that response in binutils mailing list: https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2016-06/msg00200.html So shall we just require "makeinfo" installed on build hosts? -Alexey