From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Lukichev Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:18:18 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] openpgm: new package In-Reply-To: <20130211134547.02bedae4@skate> References: <1360585826-17996-1-git-send-email-alexander.lukichev@gmail.com> <20130211134547.02bedae4@skate> Message-ID: <5118EF9A.1030106@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi, Thomas, All! On 02/11/2013 02:45 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > We no longer want to have patches that contain the package version in > their filename. Thanks, I originally based this on 2012.08 release and taught myself by manual (http://www.buildroot.net/downloads/manual/manual.html#patch-policy). I did not closely follow the mailing list. I'll fix this. > Any reason not to package the most recent version available? Are there > incompatibilities between 5.1.118 and 5.2.121 that makes 5.2.121 > unusable for zeromq? I do recall that there were, for zeromq-2.2.0, though I'm not able to tell what went wrong back then. Hence two versions were tried: first the more recent, then 5.1.118-1~dfsg. Modifications in those two patches are the same, so it's no use to have two files. I'll check more closely if zeromq-2.2.0 can be made to work with the recent version of openpgm. >> +@@ -284,7 +284,8 @@ AC_RUN_IFELSE( >> + [AC_MSG_RESULT([yes]) >> + pgm_unaligned_pointers=yes], >> + [AC_MSG_RESULT([no]) >> +- pgm_unaligned_pointers=no]) >> ++ pgm_unaligned_pointers=no], >> ++ pgm_unaligned_pointers=yes) > > Are we sure that pgm_unaligned_pointers=yes will be valid on all > architectures? > > Rather than hardcoding this, I would prefer if it was possible to pass > a variable in the configure script environment to tell the result of > this test. Is there a way to determine if target architecture has unaligned pointers or aligned pointers? >> +OPENPGM_VERSION = 5.1.118-1~dfsg >> +OPENPGM_SOURCE = libpgm-$(OPENPGM_VERSION).tar.gz > > Strange, the project is called openpgm but the tarball is named libpgm? > Usually, we try to use the upstream name, but here it's unclear if we > should choose libpgm or openpgm. Does the openpgm projects delivers > something else than libpgm? Not as far as I know. >> +OPENPGM_DEPENDENCIES = > Not needed if it's empty. > You should also add the OPENPGM_LICENSE and OPENPGM_LICENSE_FILES Thanks, will be fixed. >> +OPENPGM_AUTORECONF = YES > > Since the source code comes as a tarball, it's uncommon to have to do > an autoreconf. Could you add a comment right before this line that > explains why it is needed? Yes, I will do that. As Yann has mentioned, it's needed because the configure.ac has been patched. >> +OPENPGM_CONF_ENV = ac_cv_file__proc_cpuinfo=yes ac_cv_file__dev_rtc=no \ >> + ac_cv_file__dev_hpet=no Well, for that matter, these tests too may not be valid for all the target architectures. Could this somehow be determined in advance or?.. OK, I think I know the answer. Is it OK to leave them as is? An alternative would be to try to prompt the user in Kconfig. >> +OPENPGM_POST_EXTRACT_HOOKS += OPENPGM_EXTRACT_FIX > Have you tried to replace this post extract fix by: > OPENPGM_SUBDIR = openpgm/pgm/ > ? No. I will try. Thanks. -- Best regards, Alexander Lukichev