From: Nathaniel Roach <nroach44@gmail.com>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] bandwidthd: fix static build
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 21:01:43 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54314137.7020007@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141005144043.7b3aaac0@free-electrons.com>
On 05/10/14 20:40, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Baruch, Nathaniel,
>
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2014 07:50:37 +0300, Baruch Siach wrote:
>
>>> Hi Baruch, I didn't end up using pcap-config, but could you check git
>>> version 4b07a0b3d3a280cdde582060cb29f3333ba4bf6e for me? It seems to
>>> work in the config you pasted above and I haven't had any issues in my
>>> other tests.
>>
>> I can confirm that upgrading bandwidthd to
>> 4b07a0b3d3a280cdde582060cb29f3333ba4bf6e fixes the build of the config above.
>> I still think that holding the complete knowledge of all your indirect
>> dependencies, mandatory and optional, is not robust. A better future proof
>> solution IMO is to use tools like pkg-config (or pcap-config in the case of
>> libpcap) to list all dependencies that are in actual use for this specific
>> build. But this is your call as upstream.
>
> I definitely agree with Baruch here. Using pkg-config is much more
> robust, as it figures out the indirect dependencies automatically,
> without hardcoding them in bandwidthd and/or Buildroot.
>
> However, Baruch patch doesn't seem to be fully correct: it does both a
> PKG_CHECK_MODULES on libpng, and an AC_CHECK_LIB, which seems a bit
> redundant.
>
> Therefore, Nathaniel, since you're now the upstream developer, could
> you make the necessary changes in configure.ac to use pkg-config
> instead, and then send a patch updating Buildroot to a new version of
> bandwidthd ?
>
> In the mean time, I'll mark:
>
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/395809/
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/381899/
>
> as 'Changes requested'.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Thomas
>
Thomas, Baruch:
Yeah, I'm starting to lean that way too. Although I was a little
hesitant adding another build dependency, I now realise that it's
probably getting built anyway, and the version that's currently up on
github was more a case of "getting it to work".
I've had a look at pcap-config and it doesn't seem to do -lpthreads (or
from what I could see anything useful in this case), so I'll likely
adapt Baruch's original patch into upstream for both lpcap and lpng.
It might take me a few days as my study load has increased, but I'll get
it done.
Thanks,
Nathaniel.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-05 13:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-02 6:49 [Buildroot] [PATCH] bandwidthd: fix static build Baruch Siach
[not found] ` <542CFECE.9020103@gmail.com>
2014-10-02 7:52 ` Baruch Siach
2014-10-02 7:56 ` Nathaniel Roach
2014-10-02 7:58 ` Baruch Siach
2014-10-02 8:24 ` Nathaniel Roach
2014-10-02 8:33 ` Baruch Siach
2014-10-03 6:35 ` Nathaniel Roach
2014-10-05 4:50 ` Baruch Siach
2014-10-05 12:40 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2014-10-05 13:01 ` Nathaniel Roach [this message]
2014-10-05 13:12 ` Thomas Petazzoni
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54314137.7020007@gmail.com \
--to=nroach44@gmail.com \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox