From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bernhard Fischer Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:11:13 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] avr32 patches vs. x86 breakage In-Reply-To: <46a136670803210436s6f464029jb6f48b6319aa765a@mail.gmail.com> References: <1206079232.2562.60.camel@nigel-x60> <87k5jw34gp.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <20080321085200.GB8894@mx.loc> <87hcf01m0r.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <87wsnwzakv.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <46a136670803210436s6f464029jb6f48b6319aa765a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080321121113.GA10632@mx.loc> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 07:36:00AM -0400, John Voltz wrote: >I agree with Bernhard, the AVR32 arch gcc patches seriously need fixed. >There are quite a few problems caused by gcc on the AVR32 as well. It works >pretty well for the most part, but there were problems back with gcc >4.1.2causing the kernel to oops while reading ext2 and ext3 >filesystems, and now >gcc 4.2.1 breaks blackbox, and I've never been able to get webkit to work >reliably. gcc 4.2.1 also broke almost all of the open file dialogs in the >applications too. I'm blaming it all on the gcc patches. > >Have there been other issues with buildroot in the past when adding other >arches? I'm actually glad all of this happened because it shines a light on buildroot is not ment to be a patch-sink. The _proper_ thing to do is to add your arch to the upstream packages. Likewise, if you have to patch a package (for buildroot), then please take it upon you to fix the issues _upstream_. Everything else is just a maintenance-nightmare and does the opposite of what OSS is ment to achieve in the long-run. >the quality issues in the AVR32 patches. Thanks to Nigel and Peter. I would >have never discovered this on my own. Sorry for giving you guys the >headaches though! > >John Voltz