From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ezequiel Garcia Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 17:15:47 -0300 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2] openocd 0.8.0 In-Reply-To: <54889A46.8030103@integrazionetotale.it> References: <1417379718-8575-1-git-send-email-claudio.laurita@integrazionetotale.it> <54876789.8090404@vanguardiasur.com.ar> <54889A46.8030103@integrazionetotale.it> Message-ID: <5488A9F3.4040607@vanguardiasur.com.ar> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net 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