[Buildroot] [PATCH v3] package/qt5location: handle plugins being conditionally built

[Peter Seiderer <ps.report@gmx.net>]

Hello Joshua,

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:54:06 -0700, Joshua Henderson <joshua.henderson@microchip.com> wrote:

> Arnout,
> 
> On 07/28/2017 02:17 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 28-07-17 18:31, Joshua Henderson wrote:
> >> Thomas, Peter,
> >>
> >> On 07/25/2017 12:52 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>> Thanks, but Peter had sent an almost identical patch a few hours
> >>> before, and I've applied his patch.
> >>
> >> It wasn't exactly identical.  The applied patch now causes a build failure for 5.6.2:
> > 
> >  If you noticed that Peter's patch was wrong, you could have mentioned it in the
> > commit message of your patch (below the --- line). Then Thomas might have seen
> > the difference and applied your patch instead.
> 
> It was caught last night by a local build server.  Didn't notice it previously.  I
> have actually been flying right along using his patch, but only with 5.9.1.  This
> is only an issue with 5.6.2.
> 

Ups, my fault...

> > 
> > 
> >>     qt5location 5.6.2 Patching^[
> >>     Applying 0001-Fix-plugins-build-dependency.patch using patch: 
> >>     patching file src/src.pro
> >>     Hunk #1 FAILED at 7.
> >>     Hunk #2 succeeded at 14 (offset -4 lines).
> >>     1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/src.pro.rej
> > 
> >  Care to send a fix (I guess just moving the patch to the right directory)?
> 
> That should do it.  Done.

Thanks...

> 
> > 
> >  When you do, please also add a reference to the autobuilder failure:
> > 
> > http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/676abe008c9c4bddfddd7b041d8db9999e9e899d
> 
> OK.  Is there any way to subscribe to these failures?  Even better, for specific packages?
> 

The DEVELOPERS file in the buildroot root directory, send a patch adding yourself
for packages you contributed to/interested in...

> > 
> 
> ...
> 
> >>
> >> I also have several other patches to rev (add qt5wayland and license hashes for all of qt5).

Did not find time for testing the qt5wayland patch yet and missed the license hash patch...

Regards,
Peter

> > 
> >  For the qt5wayland patch, since you wrote yourself "This needs a v3 before
> > applying.", it's been marked as Changes Requested in patchwork so it won't be
> > applied and probably won't be reviewed either.
> 
> OK.
> 
> Josh