* [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] e2fsprogs: propagate LDCONFIG=true @ 2016-11-18 15:24 Maxime Hadjinlian 2016-11-18 15:24 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen Maxime Hadjinlian 2016-12-11 15:02 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] e2fsprogs: propagate LDCONFIG=true Thomas Petazzoni 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Maxime Hadjinlian @ 2016-11-18 15:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot We correctly set LDCONFIG=true for MAKE_OPTS, but not for the other steps which don't inherit it, to avoid permissions error displayed during the build, we need to set them up. Signed-off-by: Maxime Hadjinlian <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> --- package/e2fsprogs/e2fsprogs.mk | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/package/e2fsprogs/e2fsprogs.mk b/package/e2fsprogs/e2fsprogs.mk index 022ba52..b01336a 100644 --- a/package/e2fsprogs/e2fsprogs.mk +++ b/package/e2fsprogs/e2fsprogs.mk @@ -57,8 +57,9 @@ ifeq ($(BR2_NEEDS_GETTEXT_IF_LOCALE),y) E2FSPROGS_CONF_ENV += LIBS=-lintl endif -E2FSPROGS_MAKE_OPTS = \ - LDCONFIG=true +E2FSPROGS_MAKE_OPTS = LDCONFIG=true +E2FSPROGS_INSTALL_STAGING_OPTS = LDCONFIG=true +E2FSPROGS_INSTALL_TARGET_OPTS = LDCONFIG=true define HOST_E2FSPROGS_INSTALL_CMDS $(HOST_MAKE_ENV) $(MAKE) -C $(@D) install install-libs -- 2.10.2 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen 2016-11-18 15:24 [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] e2fsprogs: propagate LDCONFIG=true Maxime Hadjinlian @ 2016-11-18 15:24 ` Maxime Hadjinlian 2016-11-21 13:10 ` Carlos Santos 2016-12-11 15:02 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] e2fsprogs: propagate LDCONFIG=true Thomas Petazzoni 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Maxime Hadjinlian @ 2016-11-18 15:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Since e2fsprogs depends on util-linux, it's build after it. It means that if you want the fsck wrapper from util-linux (which is better maintained and you are sure that it's compatible with systemd) and you want e2fsck, it won't work. Because of the merge of /usr/bin and /bin, we end up deleting the fsck from util-linux. This makes an attempt at fixing the issues. Signed-off-by: Maxime Hadjinlian <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> --- I am cleary not satisfied by the way I handled that, I am not even sure it works in all cases. I can't spend much more time on this right now, so I need advice/help from the community to fix that in a proper/generic manner. --- package/e2fsprogs/e2fsprogs.mk | 12 +++++++++++- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/package/e2fsprogs/e2fsprogs.mk b/package/e2fsprogs/e2fsprogs.mk index b01336a..97efc9f 100644 --- a/package/e2fsprogs/e2fsprogs.mk +++ b/package/e2fsprogs/e2fsprogs.mk @@ -75,7 +75,11 @@ E2FSPROGS_BINTARGETS_$(BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_E2LABEL) += usr/sbin/e2label E2FSPROGS_BINTARGETS_$(BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_E2UNDO) += usr/sbin/e2undo E2FSPROGS_BINTARGETS_$(BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_E4DEFRAG) += usr/sbin/e4defrag E2FSPROGS_BINTARGETS_$(BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FILEFRAG) += usr/sbin/filefrag +# don't delete util-linux's fsck if it was selected by the user, especially +# since e2fsprogs depend's on util-linux. +ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK),) E2FSPROGS_BINTARGETS_$(BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FSCK) += usr/sbin/fsck +endif E2FSPROGS_BINTARGETS_$(BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_LOGSAVE) += usr/sbin/logsave E2FSPROGS_BINTARGETS_$(BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_LSATTR) += usr/bin/lsattr E2FSPROGS_BINTARGETS_$(BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_MKE2FS) += usr/sbin/mke2fs @@ -135,11 +139,17 @@ E2FSPROGS_DEPENDENCIES += busybox define E2FSPROGS_REMOVE_BUSYBOX_APPLETS $(RM) -f $(TARGET_DIR)/bin/chattr $(RM) -f $(TARGET_DIR)/bin/lsattr - $(RM) -f $(TARGET_DIR)/sbin/fsck $(RM) -f $(TARGET_DIR)/sbin/tune2fs $(RM) -f $(TARGET_DIR)/sbin/e2label endef E2FSPROGS_PRE_INSTALL_TARGET_HOOKS += E2FSPROGS_REMOVE_BUSYBOX_APPLETS + +# don't delete util-linux's fsck if it was selected by the user, especially +# since e2fsprogs depend's on util-linux. +# It's especially true with the merged /usr when you want to use systemd. +ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK),) + E2FSPROGS_REMOVE_BUSYBOX_APPLETS += $(RM) -f $(TARGET_DIR)/sbin/fsck +endif endif define E2FSPROGS_TARGET_TUNE2FS_SYMLINK -- 2.10.2 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen 2016-11-18 15:24 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen Maxime Hadjinlian @ 2016-11-21 13:10 ` Carlos Santos 2016-11-21 14:24 ` Maxime Hadjinlian 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Carlos Santos @ 2016-11-21 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot > From: "Maxime Hadjinlian" <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> > To: buildroot at buildroot.org > Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 1:24:27 PM > Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen > Since e2fsprogs depends on util-linux, it's build after it. It means > that if you want the fsck wrapper from util-linux (which is better > maintained and you are sure that it's compatible with systemd) and you > want e2fsck, it won't work. > > Because of the merge of /usr/bin and /bin, we end up deleting the fsck > from util-linux. > > This makes an attempt at fixing the issues. > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Hadjinlian <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> > --- > I am cleary not satisfied by the way I handled that, I am not even sure > it works in all cases. I can't spend much more time on this right now, > so I need advice/help from the community to fix that in a proper/generic > manner. What about using something like this, instead? diff --git a/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in b/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in index 4db11e1..c0b48e1 100644 --- a/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in +++ b/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in @@ -60,8 +60,12 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FILEFRAG config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FSCK bool "fsck" + depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK default y +comment "the fsck from util-linux has preference over this one" + depends on BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK + config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FUSE2FS bool "fuse2fs" depends on !BR2_STATIC_LIBS # libfuse Carlos Santos (Casantos) DATACOM, P&D ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen 2016-11-21 13:10 ` Carlos Santos @ 2016-11-21 14:24 ` Maxime Hadjinlian 2016-11-21 15:03 ` Carlos Santos 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Maxime Hadjinlian @ 2016-11-21 14:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Hi there, On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Carlos Santos <casantos@datacom.ind.br> wrote: >> From: "Maxime Hadjinlian" <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> >> To: buildroot at buildroot.org >> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 1:24:27 PM >> Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen > >> Since e2fsprogs depends on util-linux, it's build after it. It means >> that if you want the fsck wrapper from util-linux (which is better >> maintained and you are sure that it's compatible with systemd) and you >> want e2fsck, it won't work. >> >> Because of the merge of /usr/bin and /bin, we end up deleting the fsck >> from util-linux. >> >> This makes an attempt at fixing the issues. >> >> Signed-off-by: Maxime Hadjinlian <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> >> --- >> I am cleary not satisfied by the way I handled that, I am not even sure >> it works in all cases. I can't spend much more time on this right now, >> so I need advice/help from the community to fix that in a proper/generic >> manner. > What about using something like this, instead? It's indeed better, but you have to keep the bit about the busybox applet due to the merge of /sbin and /usr/sbin > > diff --git a/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in b/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in > index 4db11e1..c0b48e1 100644 > --- a/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in > +++ b/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in > @@ -60,8 +60,12 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FILEFRAG > > config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FSCK > bool "fsck" > + depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK > default y > > +comment "the fsck from util-linux has preference over this one" > + depends on BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK > + > config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FUSE2FS > bool "fuse2fs" > depends on !BR2_STATIC_LIBS # libfuse > > > Carlos Santos (Casantos) > DATACOM, P&D > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen 2016-11-21 14:24 ` Maxime Hadjinlian @ 2016-11-21 15:03 ` Carlos Santos 2017-03-27 21:29 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Carlos Santos @ 2016-11-21 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot > From: "Maxime Hadjinlian" <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> > To: "Carlos Santos" <casantos@datacom.ind.br> > Cc: "buildroot" <buildroot@buildroot.org> > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 12:24:07 PM > Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen > Hi there, > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Carlos Santos <casantos@datacom.ind.br> wrote: >>> From: "Maxime Hadjinlian" <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> >>> To: buildroot at buildroot.org >>> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 1:24:27 PM >>> Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen >> >>> Since e2fsprogs depends on util-linux, it's build after it. It means >>> that if you want the fsck wrapper from util-linux (which is better >>> maintained and you are sure that it's compatible with systemd) and you >>> want e2fsck, it won't work. >>> >>> Because of the merge of /usr/bin and /bin, we end up deleting the fsck >>> from util-linux. >>> >>> This makes an attempt at fixing the issues. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Hadjinlian <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> I am cleary not satisfied by the way I handled that, I am not even sure >>> it works in all cases. I can't spend much more time on this right now, >>> so I need advice/help from the community to fix that in a proper/generic >>> manner. >> What about using something like this, instead? > It's indeed better, but you have to keep the bit about the busybox > applet due to the merge of /sbin and /usr/sbin Right. Looks like combining the changes in Config.in and e2fsprogs.mk is the best approach. >> >> diff --git a/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in b/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in >> index 4db11e1..c0b48e1 100644 >> --- a/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in >> +++ b/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in >> @@ -60,8 +60,12 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FILEFRAG >> >> config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FSCK >> bool "fsck" >> + depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK >> default y >> >> +comment "the fsck from util-linux has preference over this one" >> + depends on BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK >> + >> config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FUSE2FS >> bool "fuse2fs" >> depends on !BR2_STATIC_LIBS # libfuse >> >> >> Carlos Santos (Casantos) >> DATACOM, P&D ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen 2016-11-21 15:03 ` Carlos Santos @ 2017-03-27 21:29 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 2017-03-27 21:31 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2017-03-27 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Coming back to this old issue (trigger by the patchwork cleanup initiated by Thomas) On 21-11-16 16:03, Carlos Santos wrote: >> From: "Maxime Hadjinlian" <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> >> To: "Carlos Santos" <casantos@datacom.ind.br> >> Cc: "buildroot" <buildroot@buildroot.org> >> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 12:24:07 PM >> Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen > >> Hi there, >> >> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Carlos Santos <casantos@datacom.ind.br> wrote: >>>> From: "Maxime Hadjinlian" <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> >>>> To: buildroot at buildroot.org >>>> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 1:24:27 PM >>>> Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen >>> >>>> Since e2fsprogs depends on util-linux, it's build after it. It means >>>> that if you want the fsck wrapper from util-linux (which is better >>>> maintained and you are sure that it's compatible with systemd) and you >>>> want e2fsck, it won't work. >>>> >>>> Because of the merge of /usr/bin and /bin, we end up deleting the fsck >>>> from util-linux. First of all, I think we should change set --prefix=/ for e2fsprogs. That way, they are installed in the same location as where busybox and util-linux put them. That removes the need for the E2FSPROGS_REMOVE_BUSYBOX_APPLETS hack. But then we have the problem that e2fsprogs.mk currently removes all the programs that it doesn't install. A simple solution would be to remove all the options from Config.in so that the removals are not needed anymore. Of course, that will do exactly the opposite of what you want to achieve here, since e2fsprogs will override everything from util-linux... But for that, there happens to be a simple solution: --disable-fsck doesn't build and install fsck (without affecting e2fsck). (Of course, I didn't actually test this, just looked at configure.ac and Makefile.in.) >>>> >>>> This makes an attempt at fixing the issues. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Hadjinlian <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> >>>> --- >>>> I am cleary not satisfied by the way I handled that, I am not even sure >>>> it works in all cases. I can't spend much more time on this right now, >>>> so I need advice/help from the community to fix that in a proper/generic >>>> manner. >>> What about using something like this, instead? >> It's indeed better, but you have to keep the bit about the busybox >> applet due to the merge of /sbin and /usr/sbin > > Right. Looks like combining the changes in Config.in and e2fsprogs.mk is the best approach. > >>> >>> diff --git a/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in b/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in >>> index 4db11e1..c0b48e1 100644 >>> --- a/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in >>> +++ b/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in >>> @@ -60,8 +60,12 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FILEFRAG >>> >>> config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FSCK >>> bool "fsck" >>> + depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK This looks like a good idea. >>> default y >>> >>> +comment "the fsck from util-linux has preference over this one" >>> + depends on BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK >>> + I don't think the comment is needed. Regards, Arnout >>> config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FUSE2FS >>> bool "fuse2fs" >>> depends on !BR2_STATIC_LIBS # libfuse >>> >>> >>> Carlos Santos (Casantos) >>> DATACOM, P&D > _______________________________________________ > buildroot mailing list > buildroot at busybox.net > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot > -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen 2017-03-27 21:29 ` Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2017-03-27 21:31 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2017-03-27 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot On 27-03-17 23:29, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > Coming back to this old issue (trigger by the patchwork cleanup initiated by > Thomas) > > On 21-11-16 16:03, Carlos Santos wrote: >>> From: "Maxime Hadjinlian" <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> >>> To: "Carlos Santos" <casantos@datacom.ind.br> >>> Cc: "buildroot" <buildroot@buildroot.org> >>> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 12:24:07 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen >> >>> Hi there, >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Carlos Santos <casantos@datacom.ind.br> wrote: >>>>> From: "Maxime Hadjinlian" <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> >>>>> To: buildroot at buildroot.org >>>>> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 1:24:27 PM >>>>> Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen >>>> >>>>> Since e2fsprogs depends on util-linux, it's build after it. It means >>>>> that if you want the fsck wrapper from util-linux (which is better >>>>> maintained and you are sure that it's compatible with systemd) and you >>>>> want e2fsck, it won't work. >>>>> >>>>> Because of the merge of /usr/bin and /bin, we end up deleting the fsck >>>>> from util-linux. > > First of all, I think we should change set --prefix=/ for e2fsprogs. That way, > they are installed in the same location as where busybox and util-linux put > them. That removes the need for the E2FSPROGS_REMOVE_BUSYBOX_APPLETS hack. > > But then we have the problem that e2fsprogs.mk currently removes all the > programs that it doesn't install. A simple solution would be to remove all the > options from Config.in so that the removals are not needed anymore. Note that this would also fix bug 9436. > > Of course, that will do exactly the opposite of what you want to achieve here, > since e2fsprogs will override everything from util-linux... But for that, there > happens to be a simple solution: --disable-fsck doesn't build and install fsck > (without affecting e2fsck). (Of course, I didn't actually test this, just looked > at configure.ac and Makefile.in.) > >>>>> >>>>> This makes an attempt at fixing the issues. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Hadjinlian <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> I am cleary not satisfied by the way I handled that, I am not even sure >>>>> it works in all cases. I can't spend much more time on this right now, >>>>> so I need advice/help from the community to fix that in a proper/generic >>>>> manner. >>>> What about using something like this, instead? >>> It's indeed better, but you have to keep the bit about the busybox >>> applet due to the merge of /sbin and /usr/sbin >> >> Right. Looks like combining the changes in Config.in and e2fsprogs.mk is the best approach. >> >>>> >>>> diff --git a/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in b/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in >>>> index 4db11e1..c0b48e1 100644 >>>> --- a/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in >>>> +++ b/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in >>>> @@ -60,8 +60,12 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FILEFRAG >>>> >>>> config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FSCK >>>> bool "fsck" >>>> + depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK > > This looks like a good idea. Since we agree that the Config.in change is needed as well, I've marked this patch as Changes Requested. Regards, Arnout > >>>> default y >>>> >>>> +comment "the fsck from util-linux has preference over this one" >>>> + depends on BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK >>>> + > > I don't think the comment is needed. > > Regards, > Arnout > >>>> config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FUSE2FS >>>> bool "fuse2fs" >>>> depends on !BR2_STATIC_LIBS # libfuse >>>> >>>> >>>> Carlos Santos (Casantos) >>>> DATACOM, P&D >> _______________________________________________ >> buildroot mailing list >> buildroot at busybox.net >> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot >> > -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] e2fsprogs: propagate LDCONFIG=true 2016-11-18 15:24 [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] e2fsprogs: propagate LDCONFIG=true Maxime Hadjinlian 2016-11-18 15:24 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen Maxime Hadjinlian @ 2016-12-11 15:02 ` Thomas Petazzoni 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Thomas Petazzoni @ 2016-12-11 15:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Hello, On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 16:24:26 +0100, Maxime Hadjinlian wrote: > We correctly set LDCONFIG=true for MAKE_OPTS, but not for the other > steps which don't inherit it, to avoid permissions error displayed > during the build, we need to set them up. > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Hadjinlian <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> > --- > package/e2fsprogs/e2fsprogs.mk | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Applied to master, thanks. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-03-27 21:31 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2016-11-18 15:24 [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] e2fsprogs: propagate LDCONFIG=true Maxime Hadjinlian 2016-11-18 15:24 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen Maxime Hadjinlian 2016-11-21 13:10 ` Carlos Santos 2016-11-21 14:24 ` Maxime Hadjinlian 2016-11-21 15:03 ` Carlos Santos 2017-03-27 21:29 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 2017-03-27 21:31 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 2016-12-11 15:02 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] e2fsprogs: propagate LDCONFIG=true Thomas Petazzoni
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox