From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:14:29 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] openpgm: new package In-Reply-To: <5118EF9A.1030106@gmail.com> References: <1360585826-17996-1-git-send-email-alexander.lukichev@gmail.com> <20130211134547.02bedae4@skate> <5118EF9A.1030106@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130211151429.682ea550@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Alexander Lukichev, On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:18:18 +0200, Alexander Lukichev wrote: > Thanks, I originally based this on 2012.08 release and taught myself > by manual > (http://www.buildroot.net/downloads/manual/manual.html#patch-policy). > I did not closely follow the mailing list. I'll fix this. No problem. Note that the manual correctly state that patches should be named -*.patch, and not --*.patch. That said, the "*" can be interpreted in a number of ways, so maybe we should add some examples to clarify what we want in terms of patch naming. > > Any reason not to package the most recent version available? Are > > there incompatibilities between 5.1.118 and 5.2.121 that makes > > 5.2.121 unusable for zeromq? > I do recall that there were, for zeromq-2.2.0, though I'm not able to > tell what went wrong back then. Hence two versions were tried: first > the more recent, then 5.1.118-1~dfsg. Modifications in those two > patches are the same, so it's no use to have two files. I'll check > more closely if zeromq-2.2.0 can be made to work with the recent > version of openpgm. Great, thanks. > >> +@@ -284,7 +284,8 @@ AC_RUN_IFELSE( > >> + [AC_MSG_RESULT([yes]) > >> + pgm_unaligned_pointers=yes], > >> + [AC_MSG_RESULT([no]) > >> +- pgm_unaligned_pointers=no]) > >> ++ pgm_unaligned_pointers=no], > >> ++ pgm_unaligned_pointers=yes) > > > > Are we sure that pgm_unaligned_pointers=yes will be valid on all > > architectures? > > > > Rather than hardcoding this, I would prefer if it was possible to > > pass a variable in the configure script environment to tell the > > result of this test. > > Is there a way to determine if target architecture has unaligned > pointers or aligned pointers? I am wondering whether ac_cv_lbl_unaligned_fail (that we set in package/Makefile.in) serves the same purpose or not. > > Strange, the project is called openpgm but the tarball is named > > libpgm? Usually, we try to use the upstream name, but here it's > > unclear if we should choose libpgm or openpgm. Does the openpgm > > projects delivers something else than libpgm? > > Not as far as I know. Then maybe we want to call the package libpgm ? > Well, for that matter, these tests too may not be valid for all the > target architectures. Could this somehow be determined in advance > or?.. OK, I think I know the answer. Is it OK to leave them as is? An > alternative would be to try to prompt the user in Kconfig. The values you're passing seem sane enough to me. > >> +OPENPGM_POST_EXTRACT_HOOKS += OPENPGM_EXTRACT_FIX > > Have you tried to replace this post extract fix by: > > OPENPGM_SUBDIR = openpgm/pgm/ > > ? > > No. I will try. Thanks. Thanks! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com