From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.windriver.com (mail1.windriver.com [147.11.146.13]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6681C609B2 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 02:14:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.40]) by mail1.windriver.com (8.14.9/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t082Ew1k022273 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 7 Jan 2015 18:14:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.224.162.174] (128.224.162.174) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.174.1; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 18:14:58 -0800 Message-ID: <54ADE821.8030000@windriver.com> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 10:14:57 +0800 From: Robert Yang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Khem Raj References: <54ADE119.6060008@windriver.com> <06BCD4D4-D179-401A-A39C-1881F2F69B65@gmail.com> <54ADE5D2.1010200@windriver.com> <796F80B8-679B-4E8F-867C-522A3CFBF88A@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <796F80B8-679B-4E8F-867C-522A3CFBF88A@gmail.com> Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: About update binutils (2.24 to 2.25) X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 02:15:07 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 01/08/2015 10:10 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > >> On Jan 7, 2015, at 6:05 PM, Robert Yang wrote: >> >> >> >> On 01/08/2015 09:55 AM, Khem Raj wrote: >>> >>>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 5:44 PM, Robert Yang wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Khem, >>>> >>>> I'm trying to upgrade binutils from 2.24 to 2.25, there is >>>> a patch binutils/libtool-2.4-update.patch which has 19317 >>>> lines, do you have any ideas on how did we make it in the past, >>>> please ? >>> >>> what conflicts are you seeing ? if they are just in configure files then you >>> need to autoteconf them manually one by one using the appropriate version of auototools as recommended >>> for bintutils 2.25 usually gcc/binutils don’t use latest auto tools. >> >> Conflicts in ld/configure, I fixed it manually, I was curious how we made this >> patch, and now you have explained, thanks. > > some portions are written and others are generated. since we do not autoreconf binutils, we do have to regenerate configure scripts > so its a special case. Usually that would not be needed for autotooled recipes Thanks, got it. // Robert > >> >> // Robert >> >>> >>> but if they are reporting changes in other files then its a different problem needs to be looked at. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> $ diffstat ./binutils/libtool-2.4-update.patch >>>> bfd/configure | 1314 +++++++++++++++++----- >>>> bfd/configure.in | 2 >>>> binutils/configure | 1312 +++++++++++++++++----- >>>> configure | 2 >>>> gas/configure | 1312 +++++++++++++++++----- >>>> gprof/configure | 1317 +++++++++++++++++----- >>>> ld/configure | 1693 ++++++++++++++++++++++------- >>>> libtool.m4 | 1094 +++++++++++++------ >>>> ltmain.sh | 2925 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- >>>> ltoptions.m4 | 2 >>>> ltversion.m4 | 12 >>>> lt~obsolete.m4 | 2 >>>> opcodes/configure | 1314 +++++++++++++++++----- >>>> opcodes/configure.in | 2 >>>> 14 files changed, 8937 insertions(+), 3366 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Robert >>> >>> >>> > > >