From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 19:59:32 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] AVR32 toolchain build failure In-Reply-To: References: <20130806195402.2f3f94e7@skate> <20130807172033.564940d1@skate> <20130808000726.66ab7194@skate> <20130808100303.2b0226dd@skate> <52037954.9080408@zacarias.com.ar> Message-ID: <20130808195932.318f5903@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Simon Dawson, On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 17:18:24 +0100, Simon Dawson wrote: > On 8 August 2013 11:56, Gustavo Zacarias wrote: > > 1) Reinstate patches in the appropiate place since uclibc was packaged. > > 2) Probably add various "depends on !BR2_avr32" in packages that need > > newer syscalls (alternatively add a ton of backports for uclibc 0.9.31 > > from newer releases). > > 3) Revert startfiles cleanup to the old manual way, adding new > > exceptions/modes for the noMMU crowd (it wasn't handled before) - or > > alternatively also patch the uclibc 0.9.31 makefile to make it more > > 0.9.32/33-ish like. > > That doesn't sound too bad. I'm happy to do this work, if appropriate. > Perhaps your point #2 will not be necessary in the short term...? Ok, so let's do this maybe? I think #2 is necessary, we already have some packages that use syscalls that aren't provided by uClibc 0.9.31. But ok, it's just a matter of adding another bunch of "depends on !BR2_avr32", it's not fun, but it's not a big deal either. As long as someone is interested in keeping AVR32 support in place, and is willing to do some effort to keep this support in a reasonably good shape in upstream Buildroot, I'm fine with keeping it. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com