From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carlos Santos Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:29:26 -0200 (BRST) Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD In-Reply-To: <561ED08C.5010301@softiron.co.uk> References: <1444859483-2268-1-git-send-email-alan@softiron.co.uk> <1444859483-2268-5-git-send-email-alan@softiron.co.uk> <20151014235522.774491e2@free-electrons.com> <561ED08C.5010301@softiron.co.uk> Message-ID: <1629967145.779413.1445282966636.JavaMail.zimbra@datacom.ind.br> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, Thomas and Alan, > From: "Alan Ott" > To: "Thomas Petazzoni" > 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