[Buildroot] [PATCH v2] openocd 0.8.0

[Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar>]

On 12/10/2014 04:08 PM, Claudio Laurita wrote:
> Il 09/12/2014 22:20, Ezequiel Garcia ha scritto:
>> Hi Claudio,
>>
>> Shouldn't this patch have a proper commit log?
> Hi Ezequiel
> thank you for your comments.
> This is my first "official" proposal, so, please, guide me through the
> right "formal" steps.

As far as I can see, the patch was more or less OK.

You only needed a nice commit log. Maybe you can take a look at other
patches being sent to the mailing list and see how that's done.

[..]
>> Are you sure it's correct to tie a host dependency
>> to a target option?
> Absolutely not.
> It's a mistake that I only partially corrected from the first version of
> the patch.
> Originally I assumed that the host part was to be built with the same
> options of the target part.
> Thomas Petazzoni pointed out this bad mistake, but I forgot to correct
> this part. Sorry.

Sure, no problem. It's normal to make mistakes, don't be so hard on yourself.

>> On the other side, the commit fails to build here:
>>
>> configure: error: hidapi is required for the CMSIS-DAP Compliant Debugger
>> package/pkg-generic.mk:167: recipe for target
>> '/home/zeta/buildroot/ciaa/output/build/host-openocd-0.8.0/.stamp_configured'
>> failed
>> make: ***
>> [/home/zeta/buildroot/ciaa/output/build/host-openocd-0.8.0/.stamp_configured]
>> Error 1
> I really apologize for that. The host part is a disaster.
> I was totally concentrated on the target part. Shame on me.
> 

No problem.

>> Any chance we bump openocd with a less invasive patch?
> I really didn't want to be invasive, trust me.
> But the actual package recipe manages only a minimal part of the options
> offered, even at the time of version 5.
> I simply tried to make a full recipe to exploit all the actual potential
> of the package, as I needed it for my project.
> Maybe it's not a good idea. Let's talk about that and find the right way
> to go.
> But note that the deleted package patches are simply useless with the
> actual code, so they are to be deleted anyway. And this is a very big
> part of the patch.
> 
> I will try to clean all the mistakes in the host part and submit a third
> version of the patch in a couple of days.

That sounds great. Maybe you can begin with a simpler patch and work
from there.

If you Cc me, I can give you a hand testing your work.
-- 
Ezequiel Garcia, VanguardiaSur
www.vanguardiasur.com.ar