[Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2014-02-07

[Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>]

On 02/10/14 11:27, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Thomas Petazzoni
> <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>> Dear Yann E. MORIN,
>>
>> On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 13:49:07 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014-02-08 08:30 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly:
>>>> Build statistics for 2014-02-07
>>>>        arm |          dvb-apps-be76da69f250 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/310e355f2f601801e4500b9d3e714d3883e7aa32/
>>>>        arm |          dvb-apps-be76da69f250 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/90e1a2e3e428e6c3fe5b51668ab92c139f176260/
>>>
>>> Too old toolchain:
>>>   - SYS_TURBO was introduced in linux 3.2
>>>   - SYS_DVBC_ANNEX_A in linux 3.2
>>>   - SYS_DVBC_ANNEX_C and DTV_ENUM_DELSYS in linux 3.3
>>
>> The too old toolchain in question is Linaro 2013.11, i.e a fairly
>> recent Linaro toolchain. I believe kernel 3.2/3.3 are not that old for
>> embedded products, and we should support toolchains that have such old
>> kernel headers.
>>
>>>>    powerpc |                w_scan-20130331 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/549564293607c959fa09e12510bb2aaa79f4f479/
>>>
>>> Too old toolchain, as usual.
>>
>> This one I agree is old. The question is: how do I exclude this package
>> from being built. Should we introduce hidden Config.in bools for kernel
>> header versions, so that the packages that need at least the kernel
>> headers from kernel X.Y are not visible if you have a too old
>> toolchain? Those bools would be set by linux-headers/Config.in for the
>> internal backend, automatically set for the well-known external
>> toolchains, and a custom choice for special external toolchains.
> 
> I think we should indeed implement a mechanism to restrict packages
> based on kernel headers.
> There have been many packages that require recent kernel headers, and
> it is not feasible to fix all these packages individually. Forcing the
> user to update their kernel headers or toolchain is not unreasonable,
> and otherwise they are always welcome to propose a patch for a
> particular package, or discuss the matter upstream.
> 
> The solution you propose seems a good idea to me and not too complex.

 I had also thought about this option already. However, I expect the "not
too complex" is not entirely true: you probably want symbols from
something like 2.6.36 up to 3.13... Hm, that's just 20 symbols, maybe not
so bad after all. However, for custom external toolchains and for custom
kernel headers, all of these have to be made visible as well, so that
adds another 20 symbols...

 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