From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:31:04 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] need help adding apache to buildroot In-Reply-To: <2495590.Ukzi9HXY20@sagittae> References: <2DD0B9C711CDFC45A3A266C78966CE7F40E3A14E@G4W3291.americas.hpqcorp.net> <50F71D3A.2010906@zacarias.com.ar> <2DD0B9C711CDFC45A3A266C78966CE7F40E3AC93@G4W3291.americas.hpqcorp.net> <2495590.Ukzi9HXY20@sagittae> Message-ID: <20130118163104.441c2bfb@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear J?r?me Pouiller, On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:25:03 +0100, J?r?me Pouiller wrote: > On Thursday 17 January 2013 22:41:24 Jenkins, Lee wrote: > [...] > > The good news is I found a patch that provides a CC_FOR_BUILD variable to > > fix the problem. However, the patch is not an "official" apache patch, but > > hosted at a different location here: > > http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/diffs/httpd-2.2.x-cross_compile.diff. If > > I'm reading the buildroot docs correctly, if I add APACHE_PATCH to > > apache.mk it will require the patch to be at the same URL as the tarball. > > Ugh. > > > > Are the "patch hooks" simply shell commands? How egregious would it be (from > > a buildroot maintainer perspective) to use the patch hooks to wget the > > patch and apply it? :-) > IMHO, this patch is small enough to be included in Buildroot tree. > > Download manually the patch, place it in your package directory and name it > RAWNAME-DESCRIPTION.patch (apache-cross-compile-fix.patch) (Exact naming rule > is in packages/pkg-generic.mk:$(BUILD_DIR)/%/.stamp_patched). > > Patch will be automatically applied. Agreed, the patch seems small enough to be included in Buildroot directly. That said, I've also found a bit strange that our package infrastructure enforces that the patches must be located on the same site, at the same location, as the original tarball. It doesn't make much sense. So we might want to change that in the future, but for this specific case, having the patch directly in Buildroot makes sense, I agree. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com