[Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2013-11-22

[Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2013-11-22

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Build statistics for 2013-11-22
===============================

        success : 68 
       failures : 34 
       timeouts : 0  
          TOTAL : 102

Classification of failures by reason
====================================

              e2fsprogs-1.42.8 | 2 
               libglib2-2.36.3 | 2 
                     gmp-5.1.3 | 2 
                 libnspr-4.9.6 | 2 
                      icu-51.2 | 2 
                  libv4l-0.8.9 | 2 
               alsa-lib-1.0.26 | 2 
ne10-88c18f02199947b2c8b577... | 1 
                      qt-4.8.5 | 1 
                 mplayer-1.1.1 | 1 
           imagemagick-6.8.7-5 | 1 
                     lxc-0.9.0 | 1 
                 schifra-0.0.1 | 1 
libwebsockets-v1.22-chrome2... | 1 
                     rpm-5.2.0 | 1 
                directfb-1.6.3 | 1 
            libvncserver-0.9.9 | 1 
                    systemd-44 | 1 
                     nut-2.6.5 | 1 
              fontconfig-2.6.0 | 1 
                  poco-1.4.6p1 | 1 
                valgrind-3.8.1 | 1 
                openssl-1.0.1e | 1 
                      gpsd-3.9 | 1 
                  udisks-1.0.4 | 1 
           argp-standalone-1.3 | 1 
                libiscsi-1.6.0 | 1 

Detail of failures
===================

      bfin |                alsa-lib-1.0.26 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/65b2966853297b16cdc472149dae6b7ed4603f03/
    mipsel |                alsa-lib-1.0.26 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/51ad394266c07f386349a5df94df1c1f9fab2722/
    mipsel |            argp-standalone-1.3 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/db81f4cf5424a1c125dd94e7ae1f7baef9d08c30/
    x86_64 |                 directfb-1.6.3 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/2d6573eb6e93e3659422658c247ce64745b51221/
      bfin |               e2fsprogs-1.42.8 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/5fec58000e36062da4a618935c72620a65214ed3/
      bfin |               e2fsprogs-1.42.8 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/2d819fc65a5bfc698be4050203a95f6bb64c4e9c/
      bfin |               fontconfig-2.6.0 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/41d6cecf13aa23ffa6ef6eac8a8a5d91cb78eaf6/
    mipsel |                      gmp-5.1.3 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/36d354880acd04a3e5e3d366a654d005be92f397/
    mipsel |                      gmp-5.1.3 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/c8c5f58e8c0b7629599a979ed7777b94f5d28eee/
       arc |                       gpsd-3.9 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/d3dd298b9ada76e9a2f15fe7803312c57e8efec1/
       arm |                       icu-51.2 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/5ce9baf6085036eed16429a1eead6e723effe23f/
      bfin |                       icu-51.2 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/e720e911fc2d989db4799e5cbe6809995dab25b2/
   powerpc |            imagemagick-6.8.7-5 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/d4665b1e16df8f26b573311cac77d43aca97a315/
      bfin |                libglib2-2.36.3 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/e7439cd27e28129292bfabfdc48b0749d288a777/
      bfin |                libglib2-2.36.3 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/74eb1cec76ee44d3fd1d656183dafa4c35840ae4/
  mips64el |                 libiscsi-1.6.0 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/d0889cd7b908b5a9c7558a63b0ee0ca079bee29d/
     nios2 |                  libnspr-4.9.6 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/690d25402b0715bde1edd2feade1a8b9187d3acd/
    xtensa |                  libnspr-4.9.6 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/14ba6426edbffa100de924aa69157b3f59368ff2/
       arc |                   libv4l-0.8.9 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/a177d552d36a8127b90b30086b260ef232ce7c55/
   aarch64 |                   libv4l-0.8.9 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/c31d99de5441133ddcd77a5f0e2350c228cf5b96/
       arm |             libvncserver-0.9.9 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/94192fe9e795286afc053c65e3bad2993ba2da26/
      bfin | libwebsockets-v1.22-chrome2... | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/63331f0fe53bc77320d31c3d3921ecc73b2f7a9d/
     nios2 |                      lxc-0.9.0 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/942c1dd275ce153b7f94d2359fb0e71a9a0f75dd/
       arm |                  mplayer-1.1.1 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/f38611e49ced60519f3c0b1177426f344430ca6e/
       arm | ne10-88c18f02199947b2c8b577... | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/947871ee21f2baa86b9f8809e6e1789b48c55871/
   powerpc |                      nut-2.6.5 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/b6f619f9c249fc653dc65f0f516cb846683700bb/
microblaze |                 openssl-1.0.1e | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/3ab8ad3ea288a3b8f4e3a4ddf60764432880b287/
      sh4a |                   poco-1.4.6p1 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/8dc9bca5969d455cc30206fc1ae6e1d3ba6eb6ca/
       arm |                       qt-4.8.5 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/c9cca5e31b9eac01ec212dca9d486a6c639aab14/
      mips |                      rpm-5.2.0 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/343579619909559b9b2bc6eafe4fb082a63fa048/
      i686 |                  schifra-0.0.1 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/424fc76a7e439e274e1cc66b09486fad8da05f8c/
       arm |                     systemd-44 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/e5484bcdcca7f2cb48913d65271de4b957ea3450/
       arm |                   udisks-1.0.4 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/ea4627cae45e972ebba5b33a2b2871ce7f46fedc/
       arm |                 valgrind-3.8.1 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/32dc58dd4219b5b74c7e623d53a1fe8034fdf31b/


-- 
http://autobuild.buildroot.net

[Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2013-11-22

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

Hi,

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Build statistics for 2013-11-22
> ===============================
>
>         success : 68
>        failures : 34
>        timeouts : 0
>           TOTAL : 102
>
[..]

>       sh4a |                   poco-1.4.6p1 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/8dc9bca5969d455cc30206fc1ae6e1d3ba6eb6ca/

Error is:

In file included from src/FPEnvironment_C99.cpp:37:0,
                 from src/FPEnvironment.cpp:48:
include/Poco/FPEnvironment_C99.h:56:30: error: 'FE_DOWNWARD' was not
declared in this scope
include/Poco/FPEnvironment_C99.h:57:30: error: 'FE_UPWARD' was not
declared in this scope
make[2]: *** [/home/test/test/2/output/build/poco-1.4.6p1/Foundation/obj/Linux/sh4a/release_shared/FPEnvironment.o]
Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory
`/home/test/test/2/output/build/poco-1.4.6p1/Foundation'
make[1]: *** [Foundation-libexec] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/test/test/2/output/build/poco-1.4.6p1'
make: *** [/home/test/test/2/output/build/poco-1.4.6p1/.stamp_built] Error 2


The same build failure has been discussed a long time ago here:
http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2011-September/046013.html
when the poco package was introduced. Then, the fpenvironment was
disabled when the C library is uclibc.
In the current failure, the C library seems to be glibc.
I'm including Baruch on this one, who was involved in the above
thread. Baruch: any idea?

>        arm |                     systemd-44 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/e5484bcdcca7f2cb48913d65271de4b957ea3450/
>        arm |                   udisks-1.0.4 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/ea4627cae45e972ebba5b33a2b2871ce7f46fedc/

I'm looking at the above two ones...

[..]

Best regards,
Thomas

[Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2013-11-22

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire
<patrickdepinguin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Thomas Petazzoni
> <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>> Build statistics for 2013-11-22
>> ===============================
>>
>>         success : 68
>>        failures : 34
>>        timeouts : 0
>>           TOTAL : 102
>>
> [..]
>
>>       sh4a |                   poco-1.4.6p1 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/8dc9bca5969d455cc30206fc1ae6e1d3ba6eb6ca/
>
> Error is:
>
> In file included from src/FPEnvironment_C99.cpp:37:0,
>                  from src/FPEnvironment.cpp:48:
> include/Poco/FPEnvironment_C99.h:56:30: error: 'FE_DOWNWARD' was not
> declared in this scope
> include/Poco/FPEnvironment_C99.h:57:30: error: 'FE_UPWARD' was not
> declared in this scope
> make[2]: *** [/home/test/test/2/output/build/poco-1.4.6p1/Foundation/obj/Linux/sh4a/release_shared/FPEnvironment.o]
> Error 1
> make[2]: Leaving directory
> `/home/test/test/2/output/build/poco-1.4.6p1/Foundation'
> make[1]: *** [Foundation-libexec] Error 2
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/test/test/2/output/build/poco-1.4.6p1'
> make: *** [/home/test/test/2/output/build/poco-1.4.6p1/.stamp_built] Error 2
>
>
> The same build failure has been discussed a long time ago here:
> http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2011-September/046013.html
> when the poco package was introduced. Then, the fpenvironment was
> disabled when the C library is uclibc.
> In the current failure, the C library seems to be glibc.
> I'm including Baruch on this one, who was involved in the above
> thread. Baruch: any idea?
>
>>        arm |                     systemd-44 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/e5484bcdcca7f2cb48913d65271de4b957ea3450/
>>        arm |                   udisks-1.0.4 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/ea4627cae45e972ebba5b33a2b2871ce7f46fedc/
>
> I'm looking at the above two ones...

The udisks problem is the following: the configuration requests lvm2
support in udisks, which causes:
select BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY
The configuration also has BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY selected.
The problem is that both are not supposed to be configured together:

config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
        bool "install dmsetup only"
        depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
        help
          Install dmsetup only and skip the LVM2 suite.

config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY
        bool "install application library"
        depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
        depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
        help
          Install application library (liblvm2app)

In the configuration menu, it seems you can indeed create such an
invalid configuration: start with LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY selected, then
enable udisks with lvm2 support. If you save, you get a .config that
has:

$ grep LVM .config
BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2=y
BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY=y
BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY=y
BR2_PACKAGE_UDISKS_LVM2=y

Because DMSETUP_ONLY is setup, the install command does not install
the lvm2app, which is needed for udisks.

This could be solved by adding 'depends on
!BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY' to the option BR2_PACKAGE_UDISKS_LVM2,
so that you cannot enable lvm2 support in udisks if DMSETUP_ONLY is
selected.
However, is there a better solution? I tried 'select
!BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY' to explicitly turn off DMSETUP_ONLY
when lvm2 support is requested, but this seems invalid.

Thanks for your input,
Thomas

[Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2013-11-22

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Thomas De Schampheleire,

On Sat, 23 Nov 2013 14:11:43 +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:

> >        arm |                     systemd-44 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/e5484bcdcca7f2cb48913d65271de4b957ea3450/

It's a fairly old toolchain that I've built with Crosstool-NG. It uses
uClibc 0.9.33.2, but there might be some missing uClibc configuration
options, or the kernel headers might be old.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2013-11-22

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Thomas De Schampheleire,

On Sat, 23 Nov 2013 16:09:40 +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:

> The udisks problem is the following: the configuration requests lvm2
> support in udisks, which causes:
> select BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY
> The configuration also has BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY selected.
> The problem is that both are not supposed to be configured together:
> 
> config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
>         bool "install dmsetup only"
>         depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>         help
>           Install dmsetup only and skip the LVM2 suite.
> 
> config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY
>         bool "install application library"
>         depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>         depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
>         help
>           Install application library (liblvm2app)
> 
> In the configuration menu, it seems you can indeed create such an
> invalid configuration: start with LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY selected, then
> enable udisks with lvm2 support. If you save, you get a .config that
> has:
> 
> $ grep LVM .config
> BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2=y
> BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY=y
> BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY=y
> BR2_PACKAGE_UDISKS_LVM2=y
> 
> Because DMSETUP_ONLY is setup, the install command does not install
> the lvm2app, which is needed for udisks.
> 
> This could be solved by adding 'depends on
> !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY' to the option BR2_PACKAGE_UDISKS_LVM2,
> so that you cannot enable lvm2 support in udisks if DMSETUP_ONLY is
> selected.
> However, is there a better solution? I tried 'select
> !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY' to explicitly turn off DMSETUP_ONLY
> when lvm2 support is requested, but this seems invalid.

Thanks for the investigation!

I unfortunately don't have a good knowledge of the various components
inside LVM2. However, what surprises me here is to have an option
called 'install this thing *only*'. Options should only install
something *more* but not exclude other options. So I believe the right
way of solving this problem is to remove the "only" aspect of this
option, and rethink completely the set of sub-options offered for the
lvm2 package. People wanting to install only dmsetup will just have to
enable only one specific sub-option, and that's it. But it shouldn't
prevent another package from requesting the library or other
applications to be installed.

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2013-11-22

[Baruch Siach]

Hi Thomas,

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 02:11:43PM +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Thomas Petazzoni
> <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > Build statistics for 2013-11-22
> > ===============================
> >
> >         success : 68
> >        failures : 34
> >        timeouts : 0
> >           TOTAL : 102
> >
> [..]
> 
> >       sh4a |                   poco-1.4.6p1 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/8dc9bca5969d455cc30206fc1ae6e1d3ba6eb6ca/
> 
> Error is:
> 
> In file included from src/FPEnvironment_C99.cpp:37:0,
>                  from src/FPEnvironment.cpp:48:
> include/Poco/FPEnvironment_C99.h:56:30: error: 'FE_DOWNWARD' was not
> declared in this scope
> include/Poco/FPEnvironment_C99.h:57:30: error: 'FE_UPWARD' was not
> declared in this scope
> make[2]: *** [/home/test/test/2/output/build/poco-1.4.6p1/Foundation/obj/Linux/sh4a/release_shared/FPEnvironment.o]
> Error 1
> make[2]: Leaving directory
> `/home/test/test/2/output/build/poco-1.4.6p1/Foundation'
> make[1]: *** [Foundation-libexec] Error 2
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/test/test/2/output/build/poco-1.4.6p1'
> make: *** [/home/test/test/2/output/build/poco-1.4.6p1/.stamp_built] Error 2
> 
> The same build failure has been discussed a long time ago here:
> http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2011-September/046013.html
> when the poco package was introduced. Then, the fpenvironment was
> disabled when the C library is uclibc.
> In the current failure, the C library seems to be glibc.
> I'm including Baruch on this one, who was involved in the above
> thread. Baruch: any idea?

I see the following comment in glibc sysdeps/sh/sh4/fpu/bits/fenv.h:

/* The SH FPU supports two of the four defined rounding modes: round to nearest
   and round to zero.  We use again the bit positions in the FPU control word
   as the values for the appropriate macros.  */

I don't know enough about fenv to know what the right solution here would be. 
The easiest one is to add --no-fpenvironment for sh4a. Is this acceptable?

baruch

-- 
     http://baruch.siach.name/blog/                  ~. .~   Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
   - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il -

[Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2013-11-22

[Romain Naour]

Hi all,

I tried to reproduce the following build failures:

powerpc |                      nut-2.6.5 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/b6f619f9c249fc653dc65f0f516cb846683700bb/
arm     |                      nut-2.6.5 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/7e4/7e4e369dc5640619e95983ad0b4571f3a3f0d84b/
(also on i686 last week...)

I have not been able to reproduce this error...
I simply found a missing dependency on libltdl

Any Idea ?

Best regards,
-- 
Romain Naour

OPEN WIDE Ing?nierie - Paris
23/25, rue Daviel 75013 PARIS
http://ingenierie.openwide.fr

Le blog des technologies libres et embarqu?es :
http://www.linuxembedded.fr

[Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2013-11-22

[Yann E. MORIN]

Romain, All,

On 2013-11-23 21:38 +0100, Romain Naour spake thusly:
> I tried to reproduce the following build failures:
> 
> powerpc |                      nut-2.6.5 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/b6f619f9c249fc653dc65f0f516cb846683700bb/
> arm     |                      nut-2.6.5 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/7e4/7e4e369dc5640619e95983ad0b4571f3a3f0d84b/
> (also on i686 last week...)
> 
> I have not been able to reproduce this error...
> I simply found a missing dependency on libltdl
> 
> Any Idea ?

Hmmm. Maybe an issue with libusb vs. libusv-compat? Both config above
have libusb-compat enabled.

I'll try a build here with only libusb.

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'

[Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2013-11-22

[Yann E. MORIN]

Romain, All,

On 2013-11-23 22:22 +0100, Yann E. MORIN spake thusly:
> On 2013-11-23 21:38 +0100, Romain Naour spake thusly:
> > I tried to reproduce the following build failures:
> > 
> > powerpc |                      nut-2.6.5 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/b6f619f9c249fc653dc65f0f516cb846683700bb/
> > arm     |                      nut-2.6.5 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/7e4/7e4e369dc5640619e95983ad0b4571f3a3f0d84b/
> > (also on i686 last week...)
> > 
> > I have not been able to reproduce this error...
> > I simply found a missing dependency on libltdl
> > 
> > Any Idea ?
> 
> Hmmm. Maybe an issue with libusb vs. libusv-compat? Both config above
> have libusb-compat enabled.
> 
> I'll try a build here with only libusb.

Well, no, it really needs libusb-compat.

OK, I'll try to rebuild those failing configs...

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'

[Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2013-11-22

[Yann E. MORIN]

Romain, All,

On 2013-11-23 21:38 +0100, Romain Naour spake thusly:
> I tried to reproduce the following build failures:
> 
> powerpc |                      nut-2.6.5 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/b6f619f9c249fc653dc65f0f516cb846683700bb/
> arm     |                      nut-2.6.5 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/7e4/7e4e369dc5640619e95983ad0b4571f3a3f0d84b/
> (also on i686 last week...)
> 
> I have not been able to reproduce this error...

Neither was I.

The errors happen on Peter's build machine, which is a PPC.
Maybe something from the host is leaking in the build, and does leak
on neither your machine nor mine.

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'

[Buildroot] [PATCH] lvm2: replace !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY by BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY is a "negative" option that disables
build and install of part of the suite. This option cannot be unselected
by other config options, which gives a problem for BR2_PACKAGE_UDISKS_LVM2:
it needs BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY, which requires the full suite.

Therefore, replace the negative BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY by a positive
BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE. To make sure that existing defconfigs keep
working, the new option defaults to y unless the legacy
BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY was selected.

Fixes http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/ea4627cae45e972ebba5b33a2b2871ce7f46fedc/

Signed-off-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
---
Note that in the legacy handling I've assumed that this will still
be taken in 2013.11.

Signed-off-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
---
 Config.in.legacy       |  9 +++++++++
 package/lvm2/Config.in | 10 ++++++----
 package/lvm2/lvm2.mk   |  2 +-
 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Config.in.legacy b/Config.in.legacy
index 587afe1..6f9050a 100644
--- a/Config.in.legacy
+++ b/Config.in.legacy
@@ -101,6 +101,15 @@ endif
 ###############################################################################
 comment "Legacy options removed in 2013.11"
 
+config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
+	bool "lvm2's 'dmsetup only' option removed"
+	select BR2_LEGACY
+	help
+	  The BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY was a negative option, which
+	  led to problems with other packages that need the full lvm2
+	  suite. Therefore, the option has been replaced with the positive
+	  BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE option.
+
 config BR2_PACKAGE_QT_JAVASCRIPTCORE
 	bool "qt javascriptcore option removed"
 	select BR2_LEGACY
diff --git a/package/lvm2/Config.in b/package/lvm2/Config.in
index b3988ea..849aab3 100644
--- a/package/lvm2/Config.in
+++ b/package/lvm2/Config.in
@@ -16,16 +16,18 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
 	  user-space. This makes it useful for not only LVM, but EVMS,
 	  software raid, and other drivers that create "virtual" block devices.
 
-config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
-	bool "install dmsetup only"
+config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE
+	bool "install the full LVM2 suite"
+	default y if !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY # legacy 2013.11
 	depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
 	help
-	  Install dmsetup only and skip the LVM2 suite.
+	  Install the full LVM2 suite. When this option is not set, only
+	  dmsetup is installed.
 
 config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY
 	bool "install application library"
 	depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
-	depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
+	select BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE
 	help
 	  Install application library (liblvm2app).
 
diff --git a/package/lvm2/lvm2.mk b/package/lvm2/lvm2.mk
index 79a0d05..698a212 100644
--- a/package/lvm2/lvm2.mk
+++ b/package/lvm2/lvm2.mk
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ else
 LVM2_CONF_OPT += --disable-readline
 endif
 
-ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY),y)
+ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE),)
 LVM2_MAKE_OPT = device-mapper
 LVM2_INSTALL_STAGING_OPT = DESTDIR=$(STAGING_DIR) install_device-mapper
 LVM2_INSTALL_TARGET_OPT = DESTDIR=$(TARGET_DIR) install_device-mapper
-- 
1.8.4.3

[Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2013-11-22

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 02:11:43PM +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Thomas Petazzoni
>> <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>> > Build statistics for 2013-11-22
>> > ===============================
>> >
>> >         success : 68
>> >        failures : 34
>> >        timeouts : 0
>> >           TOTAL : 102
>> >
>> [..]
>>
>> >       sh4a |                   poco-1.4.6p1 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/8dc9bca5969d455cc30206fc1ae6e1d3ba6eb6ca/
>>
>> Error is:
>>
>> In file included from src/FPEnvironment_C99.cpp:37:0,
>>                  from src/FPEnvironment.cpp:48:
>> include/Poco/FPEnvironment_C99.h:56:30: error: 'FE_DOWNWARD' was not
>> declared in this scope
>> include/Poco/FPEnvironment_C99.h:57:30: error: 'FE_UPWARD' was not
>> declared in this scope
>> make[2]: *** [/home/test/test/2/output/build/poco-1.4.6p1/Foundation/obj/Linux/sh4a/release_shared/FPEnvironment.o]
>> Error 1
>> make[2]: Leaving directory
>> `/home/test/test/2/output/build/poco-1.4.6p1/Foundation'
>> make[1]: *** [Foundation-libexec] Error 2
>> make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/test/test/2/output/build/poco-1.4.6p1'
>> make: *** [/home/test/test/2/output/build/poco-1.4.6p1/.stamp_built] Error 2
>>
>> The same build failure has been discussed a long time ago here:
>> http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2011-September/046013.html
>> when the poco package was introduced. Then, the fpenvironment was
>> disabled when the C library is uclibc.
>> In the current failure, the C library seems to be glibc.
>> I'm including Baruch on this one, who was involved in the above
>> thread. Baruch: any idea?
>
> I see the following comment in glibc sysdeps/sh/sh4/fpu/bits/fenv.h:
>
> /* The SH FPU supports two of the four defined rounding modes: round to nearest
>    and round to zero.  We use again the bit positions in the FPU control word
>    as the values for the appropriate macros.  */
>
> I don't know enough about fenv to know what the right solution here would be.
> The easiest one is to add --no-fpenvironment for sh4a. Is this acceptable?

I couldn't tell you. We already pass this option in one situation, at
first sight it would be acceptable to pass it in another.

Best regards,
Thomas

[Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2013-11-22

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

Hi Thomas,

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Dear Thomas De Schampheleire,
>
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2013 14:11:43 +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>
>> >        arm |                     systemd-44 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/e5484bcdcca7f2cb48913d65271de4b957ea3450/
>
> It's a fairly old toolchain that I've built with Crosstool-NG. It uses
> uClibc 0.9.33.2, but there might be some missing uClibc configuration
> options, or the kernel headers might be old.

Then what do we do? Does it make sense to use this old toolchain, or
should we update it?

Thanks,
Thomas

[Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2013-11-22

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Thomas De Schampheleire,

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:26:46 +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:

> > It's a fairly old toolchain that I've built with Crosstool-NG. It uses
> > uClibc 0.9.33.2, but there might be some missing uClibc configuration
> > options, or the kernel headers might be old.
> 
> Then what do we do? Does it make sense to use this old toolchain, or
> should we update it?

It's on my TODO-list to update all the toolchains used in the
autobuilders. I've rebuilt all the Buildroot toolchains already, and
prepared the configs for the Crosstool-NG toolchains as well. Just need
a bit of time to finalize this (I have been working on SELinux patches
yesterday evening with Ryan and Clayton).

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH] lvm2: replace !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY by BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

Hi Arnout,

On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Arnout Vandecappelle
(Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be> wrote:
> BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY is a "negative" option that disables
> build and install of part of the suite. This option cannot be unselected
> by other config options, which gives a problem for BR2_PACKAGE_UDISKS_LVM2:
> it needs BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY, which requires the full suite.
>
> Therefore, replace the negative BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY by a positive
> BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE. To make sure that existing defconfigs keep
> working, the new option defaults to y unless the legacy
> BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY was selected.
>
> Fixes http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/ea4627cae45e972ebba5b33a2b2871ce7f46fedc/
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
> ---
> Note that in the legacy handling I've assumed that this will still
> be taken in 2013.11.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
> ---
>  Config.in.legacy       |  9 +++++++++
>  package/lvm2/Config.in | 10 ++++++----
>  package/lvm2/lvm2.mk   |  2 +-
>  3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Config.in.legacy b/Config.in.legacy
> index 587afe1..6f9050a 100644
> --- a/Config.in.legacy
> +++ b/Config.in.legacy
> @@ -101,6 +101,15 @@ endif
>  ###############################################################################
>  comment "Legacy options removed in 2013.11"
>
> +config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
> +       bool "lvm2's 'dmsetup only' option removed"
> +       select BR2_LEGACY
> +       help
> +         The BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY was a negative option, which
> +         led to problems with other packages that need the full lvm2
> +         suite. Therefore, the option has been replaced with the positive
> +         BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE option.
> +

There should be a comment here that refers to the remaining legacy
reference in package/lvm2/Config.in, see
comment at BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_CUSTOM_GIT_REPO_URL_WRAP.

>  config BR2_PACKAGE_QT_JAVASCRIPTCORE
>         bool "qt javascriptcore option removed"
>         select BR2_LEGACY
> diff --git a/package/lvm2/Config.in b/package/lvm2/Config.in
> index b3988ea..849aab3 100644
> --- a/package/lvm2/Config.in
> +++ b/package/lvm2/Config.in
> @@ -16,16 +16,18 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>           user-space. This makes it useful for not only LVM, but EVMS,
>           software raid, and other drivers that create "virtual" block devices.
>
> -config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
> -       bool "install dmsetup only"
> +config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE
> +       bool "install the full LVM2 suite"
> +       default y if !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY # legacy 2013.11
>         depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>         help
> -         Install dmsetup only and skip the LVM2 suite.
> +         Install the full LVM2 suite. When this option is not set, only
> +         dmsetup is installed.
>
>  config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY
>         bool "install application library"
>         depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
> -       depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
> +       select BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE
>         help
>           Install application library (liblvm2app).

It seems odd to me that the 'full suite' does not include the app
library: it is not 'full'.
It would have been nice if we could have options for the different
components, but at first sight there seem to be quite a number of
components in lvm2: (rough estimate below)

 $ find -name Makefile.in
./lib/thin/Makefile.in
./lib/format_pool/Makefile.in
./lib/replicator/Makefile.in
./lib/snapshot/Makefile.in
./lib/mirror/Makefile.in
./lib/format1/Makefile.in
./lib/Makefile.in
./lib/locking/Makefile.in
./lib/raid/Makefile.in
./python/Makefile.in
./libdaemon/client/Makefile.in
./libdaemon/Makefile.in
./libdaemon/server/Makefile.in
./test/unit/Makefile.in
./test/api/Makefile.in
./test/Makefile.in
./daemons/cmirrord/Makefile.in
./daemons/Makefile.in
./daemons/dmeventd/plugins/thin/Makefile.in
./daemons/dmeventd/plugins/snapshot/Makefile.in
./daemons/dmeventd/plugins/mirror/Makefile.in
./daemons/dmeventd/plugins/lvm2/Makefile.in
./daemons/dmeventd/plugins/Makefile.in
./daemons/dmeventd/plugins/raid/Makefile.in
./daemons/dmeventd/Makefile.in
./daemons/clvmd/Makefile.in
./daemons/lvmetad/Makefile.in
./tools/Makefile.in
./include/Makefile.in
./man/Makefile.in
./scripts/Makefile.in
./po/Makefile.in
./unit-tests/mm/Makefile.in
./unit-tests/datastruct/Makefile.in
./unit-tests/regex/Makefile.in
./Makefile.in
./conf/Makefile.in
./libdm/Makefile.in
./udev/Makefile.in
./liblvm/Makefile.in


Best regards,
Thomas

[Buildroot] [PATCH] lvm2: replace !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY by BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 25/11/13 10:46, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> Hi Arnout,
>
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Arnout Vandecappelle
> (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be> wrote:
[snip]
>> +config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
>> +       bool "lvm2's 'dmsetup only' option removed"
>> +       select BR2_LEGACY
>> +       help
>> +         The BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY was a negative option, which
>> +         led to problems with other packages that need the full lvm2
>> +         suite. Therefore, the option has been replaced with the positive
>> +         BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE option.
>> +
>
> There should be a comment here that refers to the remaining legacy
> reference in package/lvm2/Config.in, see
> comment at BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_CUSTOM_GIT_REPO_URL_WRAP.

  True, I forgot about that. Thanks.

>
>>   config BR2_PACKAGE_QT_JAVASCRIPTCORE
>>          bool "qt javascriptcore option removed"
>>          select BR2_LEGACY
>> diff --git a/package/lvm2/Config.in b/package/lvm2/Config.in
>> index b3988ea..849aab3 100644
>> --- a/package/lvm2/Config.in
>> +++ b/package/lvm2/Config.in
>> @@ -16,16 +16,18 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>>            user-space. This makes it useful for not only LVM, but EVMS,
>>            software raid, and other drivers that create "virtual" block devices.
>>
>> -config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
>> -       bool "install dmsetup only"
>> +config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE
>> +       bool "install the full LVM2 suite"
>> +       default y if !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY # legacy 2013.11
>>          depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>>          help
>> -         Install dmsetup only and skip the LVM2 suite.
>> +         Install the full LVM2 suite. When this option is not set, only
>> +         dmsetup is installed.
>>
>>   config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY
>>          bool "install application library"
>>          depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>> -       depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
>> +       select BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE
>>          help
>>            Install application library (liblvm2app).
>
> It seems odd to me that the 'full suite' does not include the app
> library: it is not 'full'.

  Granted, but I can't think of a better name. Anyone?


> It would have been nice if we could have options for the different
> components, but at first sight there seem to be quite a number of
> components in lvm2: (rough estimate below)

  Yeah, and that would anyway be a separate patch.



  Regards,
  Arnout

[snip]


-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle                          arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect            +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind                                http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium           BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F

[Buildroot] [PATCH] lvm2: replace !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY by BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote:
> On 25/11/13 10:46, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>>
>> Hi Arnout,
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Arnout Vandecappelle
>> (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> +config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
>>> +       bool "lvm2's 'dmsetup only' option removed"
>>> +       select BR2_LEGACY
>>> +       help
>>> +         The BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY was a negative option, which
>>> +         led to problems with other packages that need the full lvm2
>>> +         suite. Therefore, the option has been replaced with the
>>> positive
>>> +         BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE option.
>>> +
>>
>>
>> There should be a comment here that refers to the remaining legacy
>> reference in package/lvm2/Config.in, see
>> comment at BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_CUSTOM_GIT_REPO_URL_WRAP.
>
>
>  True, I forgot about that. Thanks.
>
>
>>
>>>   config BR2_PACKAGE_QT_JAVASCRIPTCORE
>>>          bool "qt javascriptcore option removed"
>>>          select BR2_LEGACY
>>> diff --git a/package/lvm2/Config.in b/package/lvm2/Config.in
>>> index b3988ea..849aab3 100644
>>> --- a/package/lvm2/Config.in
>>> +++ b/package/lvm2/Config.in
>>> @@ -16,16 +16,18 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>>>            user-space. This makes it useful for not only LVM, but EVMS,
>>>            software raid, and other drivers that create "virtual" block
>>> devices.
>>>
>>> -config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
>>> -       bool "install dmsetup only"
>>> +config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE
>>> +       bool "install the full LVM2 suite"
>>> +       default y if !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY # legacy 2013.11
>>>          depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>>>          help
>>> -         Install dmsetup only and skip the LVM2 suite.
>>> +         Install the full LVM2 suite. When this option is not set, only
>>> +         dmsetup is installed.
>>>
>>>   config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY
>>>          bool "install application library"
>>>          depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>>> -       depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
>>> +       select BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE
>>>          help
>>>            Install application library (liblvm2app).
>>
>>
>> It seems odd to me that the 'full suite' does not include the app
>> library: it is not 'full'.
>
>
>  Granted, but I can't think of a better name. Anyone?

How 'large' is this application library? In this particular
configuration it is 810K (liblvm2app.so). Is it acceptable to include
it always in the 'full suite' (and thus remove the option
BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY)?

Best regards,
Thomas

[Buildroot] [PATCH] lvm2: replace !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY by BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 25/11/13 16:10, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote:
>> On 25/11/13 10:46, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Arnout,
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Arnout Vandecappelle
>>> (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> +config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
>>>> +       bool "lvm2's 'dmsetup only' option removed"
>>>> +       select BR2_LEGACY
>>>> +       help
>>>> +         The BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY was a negative option, which
>>>> +         led to problems with other packages that need the full lvm2
>>>> +         suite. Therefore, the option has been replaced with the
>>>> positive
>>>> +         BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE option.
>>>> +
>>>
>>>
>>> There should be a comment here that refers to the remaining legacy
>>> reference in package/lvm2/Config.in, see
>>> comment at BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_CUSTOM_GIT_REPO_URL_WRAP.
>>
>>
>>   True, I forgot about that. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>    config BR2_PACKAGE_QT_JAVASCRIPTCORE
>>>>           bool "qt javascriptcore option removed"
>>>>           select BR2_LEGACY
>>>> diff --git a/package/lvm2/Config.in b/package/lvm2/Config.in
>>>> index b3988ea..849aab3 100644
>>>> --- a/package/lvm2/Config.in
>>>> +++ b/package/lvm2/Config.in
>>>> @@ -16,16 +16,18 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>>>>             user-space. This makes it useful for not only LVM, but EVMS,
>>>>             software raid, and other drivers that create "virtual" block
>>>> devices.
>>>>
>>>> -config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
>>>> -       bool "install dmsetup only"
>>>> +config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE
>>>> +       bool "install the full LVM2 suite"
>>>> +       default y if !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY # legacy 2013.11
>>>>           depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>>>>           help
>>>> -         Install dmsetup only and skip the LVM2 suite.
>>>> +         Install the full LVM2 suite. When this option is not set, only
>>>> +         dmsetup is installed.
>>>>
>>>>    config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY
>>>>           bool "install application library"
>>>>           depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>>>> -       depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
>>>> +       select BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE
>>>>           help
>>>>             Install application library (liblvm2app).
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems odd to me that the 'full suite' does not include the app
>>> library: it is not 'full'.
>>
>>
>>   Granted, but I can't think of a better name. Anyone?
>
> How 'large' is this application library? In this particular
> configuration it is 810K (liblvm2app.so). Is it acceptable to include
> it always in the 'full suite' (and thus remove the option
> BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY)?

  To help answer that question, on my x86_64 glibc build:

3.0M    /tmp/lvm2-app-library
2.1M    /tmp/lvm2-full-suite
472K    /tmp/lvm2-minimal


  So the app library adds another 40% to the package size. I guess that's 
significant enough not to remove the existing option. Especially because 
the only reason is that we can't find a better name for it :-)

  My original name was "install all binaries", but I found that less 
descriptive than "full suite". Maybe "install all LVM2 programs"?

  I could also copy the full list (which is in the .mk file) to the help 
text.

  Regards,
  Arnout



-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle                          arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect            +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind                                http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium           BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F

[Buildroot] [PATCH] lvm2: replace !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY by BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 25/11/13 16:35, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
> On 25/11/13 16:10, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>
>> wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> How 'large' is this application library? In this particular
>> configuration it is 810K (liblvm2app.so). Is it acceptable to include
>> it always in the 'full suite' (and thus remove the option
>> BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY)?
>
>   To help answer that question, on my x86_64 glibc build:
>
> 3.0M    /tmp/lvm2-app-library
> 2.1M    /tmp/lvm2-full-suite
> 472K    /tmp/lvm2-minimal

  Sorry, I forgot to strip and remove the redundant files. It should be:

2.5M    /tmp/lvm2-app-library
1.6M    /tmp/lvm2-full-suite
396K    /tmp/lvm2-minimal


  Conclusion remains the same, though.

>
>
>   So the app library adds another 40% to the package size. I guess that's
> significant enough not to remove the existing option. Especially because
> the only reason is that we can't find a better name for it :-)
>
>   My original name was "install all binaries", but I found that less
> descriptive than "full suite". Maybe "install all LVM2 programs"?
>
>   I could also copy the full list (which is in the .mk file) to the help
> text.
>
>   Regards,
>   Arnout
>
>
>


-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle                          arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect            +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind                                http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium           BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F

[Buildroot] [PATCH] lvm2: replace !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY by BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote:
> On 25/11/13 16:10, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
[..]
>>
>>
>> How 'large' is this application library? In this particular
>> configuration it is 810K (liblvm2app.so). Is it acceptable to include
>> it always in the 'full suite' (and thus remove the option
>> BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY)?
>
>
>  To help answer that question, on my x86_64 glibc build:
>
> 3.0M    /tmp/lvm2-app-library
> 2.1M    /tmp/lvm2-full-suite
> 472K    /tmp/lvm2-minimal
>
>
>  So the app library adds another 40% to the package size. I guess that's
> significant enough not to remove the existing option. Especially because the
> only reason is that we can't find a better name for it :-)
>
>  My original name was "install all binaries", but I found that less
> descriptive than "full suite". Maybe "install all LVM2 programs"?

It's more than just programs, right? The default SUBDIRS includes some
libraries too:
SUBDIRS = conf daemons include lib libdaemon libdm man scripts tools

Maybe we should add 'default' in the name somewhere, as what it
installed is the set of programs/libraries/headers that are installed
by default by 'make install'. The APPLIB option then additionally
passes an extra request to configure. So for example:
BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DEFAULT_INSTALL
BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DEFAULT_SUITE
BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_NOT_ONLY_DEVICEMAPPER ;-)
...

>
>  I could also copy the full list (which is in the .mk file) to the help
> text.

That list is only used for the uninstall, so are we sure that it is up-to-date?


Best regards,
Thomas

[Buildroot] [PATCH] lvm2: replace !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY by BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 25/11/13 16:51, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote:
>> On 25/11/13 16:10, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> [..]
>>>
>>>
>>> How 'large' is this application library? In this particular
>>> configuration it is 810K (liblvm2app.so). Is it acceptable to include
>>> it always in the 'full suite' (and thus remove the option
>>> BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY)?
>>
>>
>>   To help answer that question, on my x86_64 glibc build:
>>
>> 3.0M    /tmp/lvm2-app-library
>> 2.1M    /tmp/lvm2-full-suite
>> 472K    /tmp/lvm2-minimal
>>
>>
>>   So the app library adds another 40% to the package size. I guess that's
>> significant enough not to remove the existing option. Especially because the
>> only reason is that we can't find a better name for it :-)
>>
>>   My original name was "install all binaries", but I found that less
>> descriptive than "full suite". Maybe "install all LVM2 programs"?
>
> It's more than just programs, right? The default SUBDIRS includes some
> libraries too:
> SUBDIRS = conf daemons include lib libdaemon libdm man scripts tools

  I looked at what is actually installed: the only library is 
libdevmapper. So I guess libdaemon is linked statically.

>
> Maybe we should add 'default' in the name somewhere, as what it
> installed is the set of programs/libraries/headers that are installed
> by default by 'make install'. The APPLIB option then additionally
> passes an extra request to configure. So for example:
> BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DEFAULT_INSTALL
> BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DEFAULT_SUITE
> BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_NOT_ONLY_DEVICEMAPPER ;-)
> ...
>
>>
>>   I could also copy the full list (which is in the .mk file) to the help
>> text.
>
> That list is only used for the uninstall, so are we sure that it is up-to-date?

  I can put the up-to-date list there for the moment, but of course we 
will not be sure in the future.

  Regards,
  Arnout

>
>
> Best regards,
> Thomas
>


-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle                          arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect            +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind                                http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium           BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F

[Buildroot] [PATCH] lvm2: replace !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY by BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote:
> On 25/11/13 10:46, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
[..]
>>> diff --git a/package/lvm2/Config.in b/package/lvm2/Config.in
>>> index b3988ea..849aab3 100644
>>> --- a/package/lvm2/Config.in
>>> +++ b/package/lvm2/Config.in
>>> @@ -16,16 +16,18 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>>>            user-space. This makes it useful for not only LVM, but EVMS,
>>>            software raid, and other drivers that create "virtual" block
>>> devices.
>>>
>>> -config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
>>> -       bool "install dmsetup only"
>>> +config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE
>>> +       bool "install the full LVM2 suite"
>>> +       default y if !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY # legacy 2013.11
>>>          depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>>>          help
>>> -         Install dmsetup only and skip the LVM2 suite.
>>> +         Install the full LVM2 suite. When this option is not set, only
>>> +         dmsetup is installed.
>>>
>>>   config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY
>>>          bool "install application library"
>>>          depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>>> -       depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
>>> +       select BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE
>>>          help
>>>            Install application library (liblvm2app).
>>
>>
>> It seems odd to me that the 'full suite' does not include the app
>> library: it is not 'full'.
>
>
>  Granted, but I can't think of a better name. Anyone?

I was trying an alternative approach with 'choice', but failed.
Here is what I tried:

$ hg diff package/
diff --git a/package/lvm2/Config.in b/package/lvm2/Config.in
--- a/package/lvm2/Config.in
+++ b/package/lvm2/Config.in
@@ -16,19 +16,29 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
          user-space. This makes it useful for not only LVM, but EVMS,
          software raid, and other drivers that create "virtual" block devices.

+if BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
+
+choice
+       prompt "Installation type"
+
+config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_STANDARD_INSTALL
+       bool "standard installation"
+
 config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
        bool "install dmsetup only"
-       depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
        help
          Install dmsetup only and skip the LVM2 suite.

+endchoice
+
 config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY
        bool "install application library"
-       depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
-       depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
+       select BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_STANDARD_INSTALL
        help
          Install application library (liblvm2app).

+endif
+
 comment "lvm2 needs a toolchain w/ largefile"
        depends on BR2_USE_MMU
        depends on !BR2_LARGEFILE
diff --git a/package/udisks/Config.in b/package/udisks/Config.in
--- a/package/udisks/Config.in
+++ b/package/udisks/Config.in
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ if BR2_PACKAGE_UDISKS
 config BR2_PACKAGE_UDISKS_LVM2
        bool "lvm2 support"
        select BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY
+       select BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_STANDARD_INSTALL
        help
          Enable LVM2 support


If anyone can make this work, I'd prefer it over the 'magic'
if-not-full-suite-you-get-dmonly approach.

If not, what about the naming 'standard installation' to refer to what
is called 'full suite' in your patch. If it is not standard install,
it is dmonly.

Best regards,
Thomas

[Buildroot] [PATCH] lvm2: replace !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY by BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 25/11/13 22:21, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote:
>> On 25/11/13 10:46, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> [..]
>>>> diff --git a/package/lvm2/Config.in b/package/lvm2/Config.in
>>>> index b3988ea..849aab3 100644
>>>> --- a/package/lvm2/Config.in
>>>> +++ b/package/lvm2/Config.in
>>>> @@ -16,16 +16,18 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>>>>             user-space. This makes it useful for not only LVM, but EVMS,
>>>>             software raid, and other drivers that create "virtual" block
>>>> devices.
>>>>
>>>> -config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
>>>> -       bool "install dmsetup only"
>>>> +config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE
>>>> +       bool "install the full LVM2 suite"
>>>> +       default y if !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY # legacy 2013.11
>>>>           depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>>>>           help
>>>> -         Install dmsetup only and skip the LVM2 suite.
>>>> +         Install the full LVM2 suite. When this option is not set, only
>>>> +         dmsetup is installed.
>>>>
>>>>    config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY
>>>>           bool "install application library"
>>>>           depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>>>> -       depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
>>>> +       select BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE
>>>>           help
>>>>             Install application library (liblvm2app).
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems odd to me that the 'full suite' does not include the app
>>> library: it is not 'full'.
>>
>>
>>   Granted, but I can't think of a better name. Anyone?
>
> I was trying an alternative approach with 'choice', but failed.
> Here is what I tried:
>
> $ hg diff package/
> diff --git a/package/lvm2/Config.in b/package/lvm2/Config.in
> --- a/package/lvm2/Config.in
> +++ b/package/lvm2/Config.in
> @@ -16,19 +16,29 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>            user-space. This makes it useful for not only LVM, but EVMS,
>            software raid, and other drivers that create "virtual" block devices.
>
> +if BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
> +
> +choice
> +       prompt "Installation type"
> +
> +config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_STANDARD_INSTALL
> +       bool "standard installation"
> +
>   config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
>          bool "install dmsetup only"
> -       depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>          help
>            Install dmsetup only and skip the LVM2 suite.
>
> +endchoice
> +
>   config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY
>          bool "install application library"
> -       depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
> -       depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
> +       select BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_STANDARD_INSTALL
>          help
>            Install application library (liblvm2app).
>
> +endif
> +

  So, what didn't work with this?


>   comment "lvm2 needs a toolchain w/ largefile"
>          depends on BR2_USE_MMU
>          depends on !BR2_LARGEFILE
> diff --git a/package/udisks/Config.in b/package/udisks/Config.in
> --- a/package/udisks/Config.in
> +++ b/package/udisks/Config.in
> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ if BR2_PACKAGE_UDISKS
>   config BR2_PACKAGE_UDISKS_LVM2
>          bool "lvm2 support"
>          select BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY
> +       select BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_STANDARD_INSTALL
>          help
>            Enable LVM2 support
>
>
> If anyone can make this work, I'd prefer it over the 'magic'
> if-not-full-suite-you-get-dmonly approach.

  I don't.

* Choice is not covered by randconfig, so not tried by the autobuilders.

* Choice is more cumbersome for the user

* I don't see what is wrong with a boolean option that installs more stuff.

>
> If not, what about the naming 'standard installation' to refer to what
> is called 'full suite' in your patch. If it is not standard install,
> it is dmonly.

  I called it:

config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_STANDARD_INSTALL
	bool "standard install instead of only dmsetup"
	default y if !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY # legacy 2013.11
	help
	  Install the standard suite of lvm2 programs. When this option
	  is not set, only dmsetup is installed.



  Regards,
  Arnout
-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle                          arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect            +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind                                http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium           BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F

[Buildroot] [PATCH] lvm2: replace !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY by BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote:
>On 25/11/13 22:21, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote:
>>> On 25/11/13 10:46, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>> [..]
>>>>> diff --git a/package/lvm2/Config.in b/package/lvm2/Config.in
>>>>> index b3988ea..849aab3 100644
>>>>> --- a/package/lvm2/Config.in
>>>>> +++ b/package/lvm2/Config.in
>>>>> @@ -16,16 +16,18 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>>>>>             user-space. This makes it useful for not only LVM, but EVMS,
>>>>>             software raid, and other drivers that create "virtual" block
>>>>> devices.
>>>>>
>>>>> -config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
>>>>> -       bool "install dmsetup only"
>>>>> +config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE
>>>>> +       bool "install the full LVM2 suite"
>>>>> +       default y if !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY # legacy 2013.11
>>>>>           depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>>>>>           help
>>>>> -         Install dmsetup only and skip the LVM2 suite.
>>>>> +         Install the full LVM2 suite. When this option is not set, only
>>>>> +         dmsetup is installed.
>>>>>
>>>>>    config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY
>>>>>           bool "install application library"
>>>>>           depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>>>>> -       depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
>>>>> +       select BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_FULL_SUITE
>>>>>           help
>>>>>             Install application library (liblvm2app).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems odd to me that the 'full suite' does not include the app
>>>> library: it is not 'full'.
>>>
>>>
>>>   Granted, but I can't think of a better name. Anyone?
>>
>> I was trying an alternative approach with 'choice', but failed.
>> Here is what I tried:
>>
>> $ hg diff package/
>> diff --git a/package/lvm2/Config.in b/package/lvm2/Config.in
>> --- a/package/lvm2/Config.in
>> +++ b/package/lvm2/Config.in
>> @@ -16,19 +16,29 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>>            user-space. This makes it useful for not only LVM, but EVMS,
>>            software raid, and other drivers that create "virtual" block devices.
>>
>> +if BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>> +
>> +choice
>> +       prompt "Installation type"
>> +
>> +config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_STANDARD_INSTALL
>> +       bool "standard installation"
>> +
>>   config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
>>          bool "install dmsetup only"
>> -       depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>>          help
>>            Install dmsetup only and skip the LVM2 suite.
>>
>> +endchoice
>> +
>>   config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY
>>          bool "install application library"
>> -       depends on BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2
>> -       depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY
>> +       select BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_STANDARD_INSTALL
>>          help
>>            Install application library (liblvm2app).
>>
>> +endif
>> +
>
>  So, what didn't work with this?

It behaved as before, udisks lvm support would not 
enable the standard install and keep the dmonly option...

>
>
>>   comment "lvm2 needs a toolchain w/ largefile"
>>          depends on BR2_USE_MMU
>>          depends on !BR2_LARGEFILE
>> diff --git a/package/udisks/Config.in b/package/udisks/Config.in
>> --- a/package/udisks/Config.in
>> +++ b/package/udisks/Config.in
>> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ if BR2_PACKAGE_UDISKS
>>   config BR2_PACKAGE_UDISKS_LVM2
>>          bool "lvm2 support"
>>          select BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_APP_LIBRARY
>> +       select BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_STANDARD_INSTALL
>>          help
>>            Enable LVM2 support
>>
>>
>> If anyone can make this work, I'd prefer it over the 'magic'
>> if-not-full-suite-you-get-dmonly approach.
>
>  I don't.
>
>* Choice is not covered by randconfig, so not tried by the autobuilders.

Didn't know that.

>
>* Choice is more cumbersome for the user
>
>* I don't see what is wrong with a boolean option that installs more stuff.
>
>>
>> If not, what about the naming 'standard installation' to refer to what
>> is called 'full suite' in your patch. If it is not standard install,
>> it is dmonly.
>
>  I called it:
>
>config BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_STANDARD_INSTALL
>	bool "standard install instead of only dmsetup"
>	default y if !BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2_DMSETUP_ONLY # legacy 2013.11
>	help
>	  Install the standard suite of lvm2 programs. When this option
>	  is not set, only dmsetup is installed.
>
>

Works for me!

Best regards,
Thomas