From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Mack Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 12:50:31 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] iw: fix build with new libnl-3 In-Reply-To: References: <1322665560-29888-1-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <4ED65A6C.2020003@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ED76A07.7020301@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 11/30/2011 10:31 PM, Yegor Yefremov wrote: > Hi Daniel, > >>>> The CFLAGS have to be augmented for the include dir and the patch >>>> needs to be tweaked to make the binary link to libnl-3 instead of >>>> libnl-gen. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Mack >>>> --- >>>> package/iw/iw-libnl-30-support.patch | 2 +- >>>> package/iw/iw.mk | 2 +- >>>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/package/iw/iw-libnl-30-support.patch b/package/iw/iw-libnl-30-support.patch >>> >>> this file has gone in next. Please rebase your patches on the next >> >> I can do this. I wasn't even aware of this branch, and part of the >> reason is that it doesn't show up on the cgit web interface >> (http://git.buildroot.net/buildroot) when there's no trailing slash in >> the URI, which is unfortunately the location the website >> (http://buildroot.uclibc.org/git.html) points visitors to. You can click >> on "refs" and back on "summary" which will add the "/" suffix, and then >> cgit will show the existance of the "next" branch. Very odd. >> >>> branch and try to get iw from git with this commit >>> http://git.sipsolutions.net/?p=iw.git;a=commit;h=a82abc2cac9dea7def53070565201145c76c8c6c. >> >> Not sure whether I follow you here. Do you suggest writing package >> definitions for sources that are not released yet officially? If that is >> the case, what is the reason? > > I see here 3 possibilities: > > 1. replace official release with git one > 2. wait for iw 3.3 > 3. apply related patches (from iw repo) only > > the first way is simpler and quicker to implement Ok, fine. I did that and the git version seems to cope well with nibnl-3. Nice. >> Also, I fail to see how the commit you pointed me to is related to the >> changed location of libnl-3. Is this not something that should be >> addressed independently? > > I just pointed to the latest commit. You can choose the one with related changes Ok. I rebased all patches and will repost them all. Thanks for your review! Dainel