From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guillermo A. Amaral Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:05:56 -0800 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] package/rpi-fbcp: Added package for Raspberry Pi In-Reply-To: <20180116092633.668590e9@windsurf> References: <20180116033450.6926-1-g@maral.me> <20180116033450.6926-2-g@maral.me> <20180116092633.668590e9@windsurf> Message-ID: <20180116180556.GC28324@enterprise.starfleet> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Howdy, I'll also update this patch too, thanks for taking a look. I did try to contact the developer about a year ago (via GitHub) about it. No luck. I'll try via social media, maybe I can get him to BSD or MIT it and be done with it. Thanks again! On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 09:26:33AM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:34:50 -0800, Guillermo A. Amaral wrote: > > Raspberry Pi utility used to mirror primary framebuffer to secondary > > framebuffer. > > > > Signed-off-by: Guillermo A. Amaral > > --- > > package/Config.in | 1 + > > .../rpi-fbcp/0001-make-buildroot-friendly.patch | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > package/rpi-fbcp/Config.in | 13 ++++++++ > > package/rpi-fbcp/rpi-fbcp.mk | 11 +++++++ > > Could you add an entry in the DEVELOPERS file for this package? > > > diff --git a/package/rpi-fbcp/0001-make-buildroot-friendly.patch b/package/rpi-fbcp/0001-make-buildroot-friendly.patch > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000..5f86f5af6 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/package/rpi-fbcp/0001-make-buildroot-friendly.patch > > @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ > > +From 8218434aafd18f7a1f742bddeef10b8829d59f89 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > +From: "Guillermo A. Amaral" > > +Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 15:22:21 -0800 > > +Subject: [PATCH] Make build script more buildroot friendly > > + > > +Signed-off-by: Guillermo A. Amaral > > Here as well, this Buildroot-specific patch is not nice. > > > +--- > > + CMakeLists.txt | 13 +++---------- > > + 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > + > > +diff --git a/CMakeLists.txt b/CMakeLists.txt > > +index 6202553..367182c 100644 > > +--- a/CMakeLists.txt > > ++++ b/CMakeLists.txt > > +@@ -1,14 +1,7 @@ > > + cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 2.8) > > + > > +-SET(COMPILE_DEFINITIONS -Werror) > > +- > > +-include_directories(/opt/vc/include) > > +-include_directories(/opt/vc/include/interface/vcos/pthreads) > > +-include_directories(/opt/vc/include/interface/vmcs_host) > > +-include_directories(/opt/vc/include/interface/vmcs_host/linux) > > +- > > +-link_directories(/opt/vc/lib) > > +- > > What about using pkg-config again ? > > > + add_executable(fbcp main.c) > > + > > +-target_link_libraries(fbcp bcm_host) > > ++target_link_libraries(fbcp bcm_host vchostif) > > ++ > > ++install(TARGETS fbcp RUNTIME DESTINATION "${CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX}/sbin") > > +-- > > +2.13.6 > > + > > diff --git a/package/rpi-fbcp/Config.in b/package/rpi-fbcp/Config.in > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000..9a186de9c > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/package/rpi-fbcp/Config.in > > @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ > > +config BR2_PACKAGE_RPI_FBCP > > + bool "rpi-fbcp" > > + depends on BR2_arm > > + depends on BR2_PACKAGE_RPI_USERLAND > > + help > > + Raspberry Pi utility. Used for mirror primary framebuffer to > > + secondary framebuffer. > > + > > + https://github.com/tasanakorn/rpi-fbcp > > + > > +comment "rpi-fbc needs rpi-userland" > > + depends on BR2_arm > > + depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_RPI_USERLAND > > diff --git a/package/rpi-fbcp/rpi-fbcp.mk b/package/rpi-fbcp/rpi-fbcp.mk > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000..72f778c1e > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/package/rpi-fbcp/rpi-fbcp.mk > > @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ > > +################################################################################ > > +# > > +# rpi-fbcp > > +# > > +################################################################################ > > + > > +RPI_FBCP_VERSION = 8087a71d0330a078d91aa78656684ab5313616c6 > > +RPI_FBCP_SITE = $(call github,tasanakorn,rpi-fbcp,$(RPI_FBCP_VERSION)) > > +RPI_FBCP_DEPENDENCIES = rpi-userland > > The package upstream has no license information, which basically means > you're not allowed to distribute it. A bit annoying, no? > > Could you get in touch with the upstream developer to ask him/her to > add license information. I do realize that this repository hasn't seen > any update since 4 years, so there are some chances that the upstream > developer doesn't answer. But really, shipping code that has no license > is bad. > > Thanks! > > Thomas > -- > Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering > http://free-electrons.com -- gamaral