From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail1.windriver.com ([147.11.146.13]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T3gtE-00048O-Jm for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 07:20:32 +0200 Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca [147.11.189.40]) by mail1.windriver.com (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q7L58Qrq017795 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (128.224.163.138) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.309.2; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:08:26 -0700 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:08:25 +0800 From: Liang Li To: Bruce Ashfield Message-ID: <20120821050825.GB27917@localhost> References: <20120814021712.GB25748@localhost> <502D12E2.4000808@windriver.com> <1345132684.14667.70.camel@ted> <20120817033209.GB19625@localhost> <1345196146.14667.84.camel@ted> <20120817100001.GA16621@localhost> <1345200782.26132.18.camel@ted> <20120817130151.GA1416@localhost> <20120817130517.GB1416@localhost> <50324E29.5060005@windriver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <50324E29.5060005@windriver.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: darren.hart@intel.com, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [discussion] perf: specify SLANG_INC dir for perf X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Liang Li List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 05:20:33 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline On 2012-08-20 22:48, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On 12-08-17 09:05 AM, Liang Li wrote: > > On 2012-08-17 21:01, Liang Li wrote: > >> On 2012-08-17 18:53, Richard Purdie wrote: > >>> On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 18:00 +0800, Liang Li wrote: > >>>> I am totally confused, you mentioned 'general kernel do_install', I > >>>> assume it's oe-core kernel.bbclass concept. Then you mentioned 'get > >>>> the fix upstream in the mainline kernel', how could that happen? > >>>> > >>>> We are discussing about the solution to 'fix the compile warning to > >>>> error' stuff that triggered by the '-I/usr/include/slang', right? > >>> > >>> Yes. > >>> > >>>> We do not necessarily have to change recipe to fix it since the issue > >>>> is not introduced by the recipe, the hard coded '-I/usr/include/slang' > >>>> in the Makefile cause the issue, we can fix the root cause by kernel > >>>> patch(other than just comment the line out). I see your previous patch > >>>> to kernel, by comment out the '-I/usr/include/slang' line in the > >>>> Makefile, is the same behavior, but we won't have the change(comment > >>>> out -I.. in Makefile) upstream to mainline, right? > >>> > >>> I am suggesting that firstly, someone send a patch to the mainline > >>> kernel which changes -I/usr/include/slang to -I=/usr/include/slang in > >>> that Makefile. > >>> > >>> Secondly, I'm suggesting that we add a line to kernel_do_install() in > >>> kernel.bbclass which does a sed on the Makefile as installed into > >>> $kerneldir which changes -I/usr/include/slang to -I=/usr/include/slang. > >>> > >>> We can then drop the patch I added to the linux-yocto kernels. > >>> > >>> This is all that should be needed, it should fix all the issues people > >>> have reported in a way that is acceptable to everyone. > >>> > >> > >> Ah, I see what you mean now. But we have push acceptable kernel patch > > > > One final (I hope) follow up on this. > > Liang: were you going to put together (and test) the 'sed fix' for > kernel.bbclass ? > No problem, the patch for kernel.bbclass: commit 60a0b06 Author: Liang Li Date: Tue Aug 21 11:06:01 2012 +0800 kernel.bbclass: fix INC directory for SLANG The change is intend to fix the hardcoded '-I/usr/include/slang' in the Makefile to be able to aware of SYSROOT if its specified. A planned kernel patch almost did the same change, but the change here won't conflict with it so this change could work for all kernels. Signed-off-by: Liang Li diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass index 1afb9ab..282194d 100644 --- a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass +++ b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass @@ -190,6 +190,9 @@ kernel_do_install() { for entry in $bin_files; do rm -f $kerneldir/$entry done + + # Fix SLNAG_INC for slang.h + sed -i 's#-I/usr/include/slang#-I=/usr/include/slang#g' $kerneldir/tools/perf/Makefile } PACKAGE_PREPROCESS_FUNCS += "kernel_package_preprocess" --- The patch for kernel tree: commit 6b72896 Author: Liang Li Date: Wed Aug 1 14:31:24 2012 +0800 perf: add SLANG_INC for slang.h Previously we hard code '-I/usr/include/slang' to CFLAGS to works with some hosts that has /usr/include/slang/slang.h other than /usr/include/slang.h like Fedora. This will cause compiling warnings in some cases. We could downgrade the priority of the default hard coded path, and provide user a chance to specify correct location of slang.h then user could specify SLANG_INC to avoid compile warnings like the '/usr/include/slang' is not exists etc. Signed-off-by: Liang Li diff --git a/tools/perf/Makefile b/tools/perf/Makefile index b7a7a87..e403c36 100644 --- a/tools/perf/Makefile +++ b/tools/perf/Makefile @@ -496,8 +496,10 @@ else msg := $(warning newt not found, disables TUI support. Please install newt-devel or libnewt-dev); BASIC_CFLAGS += -DNO_NEWT_SUPPORT else - # Fedora has /usr/include/slang/slang.h, but ubuntu /usr/include/slang.h - BASIC_CFLAGS += -I/usr/include/slang + # Some releases like Fedora has /usr/include/slang/slang.h other than /usr/include/slang.h + SLANG_INC ?= -idirafter =/usr/include/slang + BASIC_CFLAGS += $(SLANG_INC) + EXTLIBS += -lnewt -lslang LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)ui/setup.o LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)ui/browser.o --- Comments? :) Thanks, Liang Li > I have my own set of issues that are consuming my time now, and I want > to ensure that this doesn't fall through the cracks, since we need a > full/real fix for this as soon as possible. > > Cheers, > > Bruce > > > > Sorry, I mean 'we can ...' instead of 'we have ...', just typo.