From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heikki Lindholm Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:50:56 +0300 Subject: [Buildroot] config update In-Reply-To: <20070724181817.GC20613@aon.at> References: <469C604E.5060703@cs.helsinki.fi> <20070724123433.GA18856@aon.at> <46A63685.5060806@cs.helsinki.fi> <20070724181817.GC20613@aon.at> Message-ID: <46A6E4C0.1080201@cs.helsinki.fi> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Bernhard Fischer kirjoitti: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 08:27:33PM +0300, Heikki Lindholm wrote: > >>Bernhard Fischer kirjoitti: >> >>>On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 09:23:10AM +0300, Heikki Lindholm wrote: >>> >>>>Hello, >>>> >>>>I just updated my OS X buildroot and, recent changes breaking it, I have >>> >>>Can you please be more specific as to how it broke? >> >>Well, basically, it was easier to fix than thought, and I posted a patch >>already: >>http://buildroot.uclibc.org/lists/buildroot/2007-July/003659.html > > > I'm curious if you need the same patch if you make menuconfig with e.g. > linux-2.6.21.5. 2.6.21* wont' work, but 2.6.22 has fixed the problem with linking. It also doesn't have the foo.h problem at all. > If so, then please fix this upstream first. If not then there must be > something different going on and we need to track that down. > > >>The two culprits for the breakage are: >>(1) foo.h includes features.h, which doesn't exist on OS X. Referring to my >>above patch, this could also be fixed in the Makefile by not including >>foo.h on OS X, but IMHO that's trickier (uname). >>(2) The linking was changed so, that ncurses wasn't linked in on OS X >>anymore >> >>BUT I also noted another breakage, which I'm clueless about: >>http://buildroot.uclibc.org/lists/buildroot/2007-July/003658.html >>I'm using the same config I was with an older version (for example, rev >>18688 worked). > > > Do you have SYSROOT set in your .config? I think the whole concept was introduced when I wasn't following buildroot development much. The old config file I used doesn't have any symbols containing SYSROOT. > You're using 4.1.2 and there was a reason why i only enabled sysroot for > gcc >= 4.2.0 (IIRC sjhill changed this, so you're better off to ask him > why he enabled sysroot support for 4.1.2.. I figure that it worked for > him else he wouldn't have enabled it. Perhaps it was erroneously enabled, > i wouldn't know.) Maybe I'll just give 4.2.0 a shot, if that's the new standard(?) -- Heikki Lindholm