| Submitter | Koen Kooi |
|---|---|
| Date | Nov. 27, 2011, 12:04 p.m. |
| Message ID | <1322395493-30396-1-git-send-email-koen@dominion.thruhere.net> |
| Download | mbox | patch |
| Permalink | /patch/15443/ |
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 720cd3f32ca8cc4701e99effdd3b3da0cca8348d |
| Headers | show |
Comments
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote: > -EXTRA_OEMAKE = "ds9097 ds9097u" > +EXTRA_OEMAKE = "ds9097 ds9097u \ > + SYSTYPE='Linux' \ > + " > +# Fix GNU_HASH QA errors > +TARGET_CC_ARCH += "${CFLAGS} ${LDFLAGS}" > > why CFLAGS ? I thought only LDFLAGS would have been sufficient
Op 28 nov. 2011, om 03:17 heeft Khem Raj het volgende geschreven: > On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote: >> -EXTRA_OEMAKE = "ds9097 ds9097u" >> +EXTRA_OEMAKE = "ds9097 ds9097u \ >> + SYSTYPE='Linux' \ >> + " >> +# Fix GNU_HASH QA errors >> +TARGET_CC_ARCH += "${CFLAGS} ${LDFLAGS}" >> >> > > why CFLAGS ? I thought only LDFLAGS would have been sufficient For GNU_HASH yes, but the buildsystem was ignoring both CFLAGS and LDFLAGS. regards, Koen
Acked-by: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 06:26, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote: > > Op 28 nov. 2011, om 03:17 heeft Khem Raj het volgende geschreven: > > > On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> > wrote: > >> -EXTRA_OEMAKE = "ds9097 ds9097u" > >> +EXTRA_OEMAKE = "ds9097 ds9097u \ > >> + SYSTYPE='Linux' \ > >> + " > >> +# Fix GNU_HASH QA errors > >> +TARGET_CC_ARCH += "${CFLAGS} ${LDFLAGS}" > >> > >> > > > > why CFLAGS ? I thought only LDFLAGS would have been sufficient > > For GNU_HASH yes, but the buildsystem was ignoring both CFLAGS and LDFLAGS. > > regards, > > Koen > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iEYEARECAAYFAk7TRcgACgkQMkyGM64RGpGywgCgjzrNXHq8p6U9B0SxwnA185VM > cFoAn2GqpleZxYeGQkSsr7oy/0lfrJn5 > =Nbq+ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > >
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote: > > Op 28 nov. 2011, om 03:17 heeft Khem Raj het volgende geschreven: > >> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote: >>> -EXTRA_OEMAKE = "ds9097 ds9097u" >>> +EXTRA_OEMAKE = "ds9097 ds9097u \ >>> + SYSTYPE='Linux' \ >>> + " >>> +# Fix GNU_HASH QA errors >>> +TARGET_CC_ARCH += "${CFLAGS} ${LDFLAGS}" >>> >>> >> >> why CFLAGS ? I thought only LDFLAGS would have been sufficient > > For GNU_HASH yes, but the buildsystem was ignoring both CFLAGS and LDFLAGS. > bug in the build system I would say > regards, > > Koen > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iEYEARECAAYFAk7TRcgACgkQMkyGM64RGpGywgCgjzrNXHq8p6U9B0SxwnA185VM > cFoAn2GqpleZxYeGQkSsr7oy/0lfrJn5 > =Nbq+ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >
2011/11/28 Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> > wrote: > > > > Op 28 nov. 2011, om 03:17 heeft Khem Raj het volgende geschreven: > > > >> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> > wrote: > >>> -EXTRA_OEMAKE = "ds9097 ds9097u" > >>> +EXTRA_OEMAKE = "ds9097 ds9097u \ > >>> + SYSTYPE='Linux' \ > >>> + " > >>> +# Fix GNU_HASH QA errors > >>> +TARGET_CC_ARCH += "${CFLAGS} ${LDFLAGS}" > >>> > >>> > >> > >> why CFLAGS ? I thought only LDFLAGS would have been sufficient > > > > For GNU_HASH yes, but the buildsystem was ignoring both CFLAGS and > LDFLAGS. > > > > bug in the build system I would say > > Actually personally I'd say passing CFLAGS and LDFLAGS to TARGET_CC_ARCH is a workaround and the real solution is patching the build system to not to ignore those flags. Frans
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 05:52, Frans Meulenbroeks < fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com> wrote: > Actually personally I'd say passing CFLAGS and LDFLAGS to TARGET_CC_ARCH > is a workaround and the real solution is patching the build system to not > to ignore those flags. Yes; I am cooking a patch for it.
Patch
diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-support/digitemp/digitemp_3.6.0.bb b/meta-oe/recipes-support/digitemp/digitemp_3.6.0.bb index 395e56a..0ac8fa3 100644 --- a/meta-oe/recipes-support/digitemp/digitemp_3.6.0.bb +++ b/meta-oe/recipes-support/digitemp/digitemp_3.6.0.bb @@ -4,14 +4,18 @@ DEPENDS = "libusb1" LICENSE = "GPLv2" LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=44fee82a1d2ed0676cf35478283e0aa0" -PR = "r1" +PR = "r2" SRC_URI = "http://www.digitemp.com/software/linux/digitemp-${PV}.tar.gz \ file://makefile-fix.patch" +SRC_URI[md5sum] = "9be2e48db37920f21925ae6e88f83b84" +SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "14cfc584cd3714fe8c9a2cdc8388be49e08b5e395d95e6bcd11d4410e2505ca2" -inherit autotools - -EXTRA_OEMAKE = "ds9097 ds9097u" +EXTRA_OEMAKE = "ds9097 ds9097u \ + SYSTYPE='Linux' \ + " +# Fix GNU_HASH QA errors +TARGET_CC_ARCH += "${CFLAGS} ${LDFLAGS}" do_configure() { rm -f digitemp_*
* missing SRC_URI checksums * GNU_HASH QA errors: WARNING: QA Issue: No GNU_HASH in the elf binary: '/OE/tentacle/build/tmp-angstrom_2010_x-eglibc/work/armv7a-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/digitemp-3.6.0-r2/packages-split/digitemp/usr/sbin/digitemp_DS9097U' WARNING: QA Issue: No GNU_HASH in the elf binary: '/OE/tentacle/build/tmp-angstrom_2010_x-eglibc/work/armv7a-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/digitemp-3.6.0-r2/packages-split/digitemp/usr/sbin/digitemp_DS9097' * $(uname -s) access Signed-off-by: Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> --- meta-oe/recipes-support/digitemp/digitemp_3.6.0.bb | 12 ++++++++---- 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)