[Buildroot] [PATCH] package: add powertop 2.7

[Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>]

Dear Steven Noonan,

On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:40:21 -0700, Steven Noonan wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Steven Noonan <steven@uplinklabs.net>

I've applied, but to be honest, I found that they were too many trivial
issues that should have been discovered before the patch was submitted.
Here is the list of things that I had to change:

    [Thomas:
      - fix commit title
      - powertop wants libintl unconditionally, so make sure
        BR2_PACKAGE_GETTEXT is selected when BR2_NEEDS_GETTEXT is set,
        and add gettext to the dependencies.
      - add missing comment about thread dependency.
      - add missing dependency on host-pkgconf, without which powertop
        cannot find libnl.
      - patch src/Makefile.am to not pass -fstack-protector, which fails
        to build if the toolchain does not have SSP support.
      - rename patch powertop-autotune.patch to confirm to the patch
        naming convention.]

Commit title: we normally expect "<foo>: new package" for package
additions. I agree, this is pure nitpicking :-)

The libintl issue was trivially found by using a uClibc toolchain,
which is the default in Buildroot. You can for example use
http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/br-arm-full.config as
a base configuration file to quickly test things against uClibc.

The missing thread comment was trivial, it's documented in the section
"17.2.2. Dependencies on target and toolchain options" in the Buildroot
manual.

The missing dependency on host-pkgconf is seen when you do a build with
just powertop. Whenever you submit a new package, make sure you do a
build from scratch with just this package enabled, so that you have
some minimal verification that the dependencies are correct.

The -fstack-protector issue was also seen because I'm using a standard
uClibc toolchain, which do not have SSP enabled by default.

The patch naming convention is also documented in the Buildroot manual.

In the light of those comments, could you have a second look at your
other "new package" submissions and retest them with a uClibc
toolchain, and with a Buildroot build having just each new package
enabled, in order to discover missing dependencies?

Thanks a lot!

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com