From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bernhard Fischer Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:52:43 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] _VER vs. _VERSION breakage In-Reply-To: <1184615647.18357.27.camel@elrond.sweden.atmel.com> References: <20070715104024.GB4096@aon.at> <1184615647.18357.27.camel@elrond.sweden.atmel.com> Message-ID: <20070723095243.GC6597@aon.at> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 09:54:06PM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote: >s?n 2007-07-15 klockan 12:40 +0200 skrev Bernhard Fischer: >> Ulf, >> >> Your change to use _VERSION broke at least acpid. Please double-check >> that all packages that you touched in this patch still build fine and >> repair. > >Here is the result of trying to build most available packages >in buildroot for ARM. (I build for ARM generic (not using WCHAR)). I will revert that _VERSION vs. _VER patch since it breaks a couple of packages. > >A lot of the packages does not build for ARM, Could be. For changes like _VER vs. _VERSION, a quick check with an x86 build before and after such a change would have been the proper thing to do, imho. >but if you can download the package, decompress it >in build_ and then configure or patch it, >then the VERSION patch is OK for this package. >At least some of the packages seems to require the uClibc is >built with WCHAR. We should probably identify these packages >and hide them during configuration if WCHAR is not enabled. Yes, this is a completely different issue, though. > >Some packages like ACPID does not build for ARM >but I think I got that right anyway, even if I did not try that >specific package. >Maybe someone building x86 can report the few packages >I have problems with on ARM? No need, i'll revert said patch and let those who want such a patch to go in check if they break something. Breaking the build for cosmetic reasons is not a sensible thing to do.