[Buildroot] avr32 patches vs. x86 breakage

[Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@uclibc.org>]

>>>>> "Nigel" == Nigel Kukard <nkukard@lbsd.net> writes:

Hi,

 Nigel> Hi Guys,
 Nigel> Will this proposal to fix the problem work ...

 Nigel> - Make a dir under arch-avr32, for gcc-x.y.z

 Nigel> - Add a make file to set something like
 Nigel> BOARD_EXTRA_PATCH_PATH=target/device/arch-avr32  this will be set if the
 Nigel> board is AVR32 based 

 Nigel> - In GCC / binutils/ uclibc and where ever else avr32 patches are
 Nigel> applied, we can tst if BOARD_EXTRA_PATCH_PATH is available. If it is to
 Nigel> add those patches into the patch set being applied. This should be
 Nigel> simplistic as we know the version for instance GCC_VERSION, we'd just
 Nigel> have to test the path exists and do something like    \*.patch
 Nigel> $(MORE_PATCHES)  , where we set a few lines up.  MORE_PATCHES=
 Nigel> $(BOARD_EXTRA_PATCH_PATH)/gcc-$(GCC_VERSION)

As discussed on IRC, I think its cleaner if everything related to a
package is located under the package/<package>/ dir.

The real problem is that apparent quality issues of some of the arch
specific patches.

If possible, I would prefer if all archs would use the same sources
(so apply the same patches for all archs) as the patches then get a
lot more testing - E.G. you might otherwise not notice if a patch for
some obscure arch no longer applies because you bumped the version of
a package.

But that doesn't seem realistic with the current patches, so I instead
suggest we split up patches in generic and arch specific. The generic
ones gets applied to all archs, and only the arch specific ones for
the selected arch.

The easiest setup is probably to use the naming convention:

 - package-version-*.patch for generic stuff
 - arch-package-version-*.patch for arch specific stuff

What do you think?

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard