From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 20:01:08 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] ola: new package In-Reply-To: References: <1375881032-23901-1-git-send-email-blanco.ether@gmail.com> <20130810191316.7fd6fdbe@skate> Message-ID: <20130812200108.3e03fc40@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear David Skok, Please always keep the Buildroot mailing list Cc'ed when continuing discussions that started on the list. On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 08:26:57 -0400, David Skok wrote: > I've made the changes you point out. My apologies but I don't know > what you mean by "patch is not wrapped" and is (is not?) proper > format. What I meant is that your latest patch was perfect. Often, when people send patches with their normal e-mail client, most e-mail clients tend to "wrap" lines at 80 characters or so: instead of having very very long lines, you have lines nicely wrapped at a reasonable length. However, while this is very useful when exchanging text, it falls apart when exchanging patches, because the wrapping feature of the e-mail clients breaks the patches and they can no longer be applied. By using 'git send-email' (as you did), you make sure that your e-mail client will not interfere with how the patch is sent, and specifically that it doesn't get wrapped. > I use git command line outlined in buildroot manual to send > it. I am new to contributing to open source and am doing my best to > learn compliance for contribution. Thank you for your patience so > far. > > Regarding the compile problem. I have worked with the maintainer > previously while I was testing package to correct compile issues. I > also test result with success. The external compiler I used at the > time was linaro 2013.01 which was option in buildroot for ARM A8 then. > I will verify error with configuration you report and find a solution > asap. I must say I haven't tested with a Linaro toolchain, which is glibc based, and I only tested with an uClibc based toolchain. However, seeing the message, I don't really suspect a glibc vs. uClibc difference. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com