From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 20:54:24 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] prosody: bump to version 0.10.0 In-Reply-To: <20171014133956.25082-1-francois.perrad@gadz.org> References: <20171014133956.25082-1-francois.perrad@gadz.org> Message-ID: <20171016205424.357bf369@windsurf.lan> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 15:39:56 +0200, Francois Perrad wrote: > this version is not restricted to Lua 5.1 > the configure step is refactored with the variable PROSODY_CONF_OPTS > > Signed-off-by: Francois Perrad Thanks for this bump. One question below though. > -PROSODY_VERSION = 0.9.12 > +PROSODY_VERSION = 0.10.0 > PROSODY_SITE = https://prosody.im/downloads/source > PROSODY_LICENSE = MIT > PROSODY_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING > -PROSODY_DEPENDENCIES = openssl libidn > +PROSODY_DEPENDENCIES = host-luainterpreter luainterpreter libidn openssl Why do we need host-luainterpreter? There wasn't such a dependency in the previous version. > -ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_LUA_5_1),y) > -PROSODY_DEPENDENCIES += lua > -endif > +PROSODY_CONF_OPTS = \ > + --with-lua-bin="$(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin" \ > + --with-lua="$(STAGING_DIR)/usr" \ > + --lua-version=$(LUAINTERPRETER_ABIVER) \ > + --c-compiler=$(TARGET_CC) \ > + --cflags="$(TARGET_CFLAGS)" \ > + --linker=$(TARGET_CC) \ > + --ldflags="$(TARGET_LDFLAGS) -shared" \ > + --sysconfdir=/etc/prosody \ > + --prefix="/usr" > > ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_LUAJIT),y) > -PROSODY_DEPENDENCIES += luajit > +PROSODY_CONF_OPTS += --runwith=luajit > endif > > define PROSODY_CONFIGURE_CMDS > - cd $(@D) && \ > - $(TARGET_CONFIGURE_OPTS) \ > - ./configure --prefix=/usr \ > - --c-compiler=$(TARGET_CC) \ > - --cflags="$(TARGET_CFLAGS)" \ > - --linker=$(TARGET_CC) \ > - --ldflags="$(TARGET_LDFLAGS) -shared" \ > - --sysconfdir=/etc/prosody \ > - --with-lua=$(STAGING_DIR)/usr > + cd $(@D) && ./configure $(PROSODY_CONF_OPTS) Even though the refactoring of CONF_OPTS is related to the bump, it would have been nice to have it as a separate patch, prior to the bump. Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com