[1/4] gmp: also generate the libgmpcxx library & package it properly

Submitted by Nitin A Kamble on Nov. 29, 2011, 7:30 p.m.

Details

Message ID 48bd68cce53c87c7f9296a0a0ad5286efef7d5cc.1322594901.git.nitin.a.kamble@intel.com
State Accepted
Commit ac59ea9d55c2fae870fb60dbba920fefe1f3487f
Headers show

Commit Message

Nitin A Kamble Nov. 29, 2011, 7:30 p.m.
From: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>

configure runs few checks to make sure c++ compiler and runtime are working
as expected with the --enable-cxx=detect option. And it enables building
of libgmpxx library.

Same as earlier the libgmp.so.10.x file is packaged in the libgmp10 package,
and a new package named libgmpxx4 is added for libgmpxx.so.4.x file.

Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org>
---
 meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp.inc      |    5 +++++
 meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp_5.0.2.bb |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

Patch hide | download patch | download mbox

diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp.inc b/meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp.inc
index 66349e6..5ba118d 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp.inc
+++ b/meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp.inc
@@ -14,3 +14,8 @@  ARM_INSTRUCTION_SET = "arm"
 acpaths = ""
 
 BBCLASSEXTEND = "native nativesdk"
+
+EXTRA_OECONF += " --enable-cxx=detect"
+
+PACKAGES =+ "libgmpxx"
+FILES_libgmpxx = "${libdir}/libgmpxx${SOLIBS}"
diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp_5.0.2.bb b/meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp_5.0.2.bb
index 16bdcbc..873fc3e 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp_5.0.2.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp_5.0.2.bb
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@  require gmp.inc
 LICENSE="LGPLv3&GPLv3"
 LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=d32239bcb673463ab874e80d47fae504 \
 		    file://version.c;endline=18;md5=d8c56b52b9092346b9f93b4da65ef790"
-PR = "r1"
+PR = "r2"
 
 SRC_URI_append += "file://sh4-asmfix.patch \
                    file://use-includedir.patch "

Comments

Otavio Salvador Nov. 29, 2011, 7:37 p.m.
Acked-by: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 17:30, <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com> wrote:

> From: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
>
> configure runs few checks to make sure c++ compiler and runtime are working
> as expected with the --enable-cxx=detect option. And it enables building
> of libgmpxx library.
>
> Same as earlier the libgmp.so.10.x file is packaged in the libgmp10
> package,
> and a new package named libgmpxx4 is added for libgmpxx.so.4.x file.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org>
> ---
>  meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp.inc      |    5 +++++
>  meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp_5.0.2.bb |    2 +-
>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp.inc
> b/meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp.inc
> index 66349e6..5ba118d 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp.inc
> +++ b/meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp.inc
> @@ -14,3 +14,8 @@ ARM_INSTRUCTION_SET = "arm"
>  acpaths = ""
>
>  BBCLASSEXTEND = "native nativesdk"
> +
> +EXTRA_OECONF += " --enable-cxx=detect"
> +
> +PACKAGES =+ "libgmpxx"
> +FILES_libgmpxx = "${libdir}/libgmpxx${SOLIBS}"
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp_5.0.2.bbb/meta/recipes-support/gmp/
> gmp_5.0.2.bb
> index 16bdcbc..873fc3e 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp_5.0.2.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp_5.0.2.bb
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ require gmp.inc
>  LICENSE="LGPLv3&GPLv3"
>  LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=d32239bcb673463ab874e80d47fae504 \
>
>  file://version.c;endline=18;md5=d8c56b52b9092346b9f93b4da65ef790"
> -PR = "r1"
> +PR = "r2"
>
>  SRC_URI_append += "file://sh4-asmfix.patch \
>                    file://use-includedir.patch "
> --
> 1.7.6.4
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
Phil Blundell Nov. 29, 2011, 8:20 p.m.
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 11:30 -0800, nitin.a.kamble@intel.com wrote:
> From: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> 
> configure runs few checks to make sure c++ compiler and runtime are working
> as expected with the --enable-cxx=detect option. And it enables building
> of libgmpxx library.
> 
> Same as earlier the libgmp.so.10.x file is packaged in the libgmp10 package,
> and a new package named libgmpxx4 is added for libgmpxx.so.4.x file.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org>

Um, why does this patch have my name in Signed-off-by?

p.
Nitin A Kamble Nov. 29, 2011, 9:08 p.m.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> Phil Blundell
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 12:20 PM
> To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/4] gmp: also generate the libgmpcxx
> library & package it properly
> 
> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 11:30 -0800, nitin.a.kamble@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> >
> > configure runs few checks to make sure c++ compiler and runtime are
> working
> > as expected with the --enable-cxx=detect option. And it enables
> building
> > of libgmpxx library.
> >
> > Same as earlier the libgmp.so.10.x file is packaged in the libgmp10
> package,
> > and a new package named libgmpxx4 is added for libgmpxx.so.4.x file.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org>
> 
> Um, why does this patch have my name in Signed-off-by?
> 
> p.

Because I took the code from your email.

Nitin

> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Koen Kooi Nov. 29, 2011, 9:12 p.m.
Op 29 nov. 2011, om 22:08 heeft Kamble, Nitin A het volgende geschreven:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
>> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
>> Phil Blundell
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 12:20 PM
>> To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
>> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/4] gmp: also generate the libgmpcxx
>> library & package it properly
>> 
>> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 11:30 -0800, nitin.a.kamble@intel.com wrote:
>>> From: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
>>> 
>>> configure runs few checks to make sure c++ compiler and runtime are
>> working
>>> as expected with the --enable-cxx=detect option. And it enables
>> building
>>> of libgmpxx library.
>>> 
>>> Same as earlier the libgmp.so.10.x file is packaged in the libgmp10
>> package,
>>> and a new package named libgmpxx4 is added for libgmpxx.so.4.x file.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org>
>> 
>> Um, why does this patch have my name in Signed-off-by?
>> 
>> p.
> 
> Because I took the code from your email.

That still doesn't explain why you added a signed-off-by without asking. A SOB has a defined meaning, willy nilly adding people amounts to fraud.
Nitin A Kamble Nov. 29, 2011, 9:43 p.m.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> Koen Kooi
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 1:12 PM
> To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/4] gmp: also generate the libgmpcxx
> library & package it properly
> 
> 
> Op 29 nov. 2011, om 22:08 heeft Kamble, Nitin A het volgende
> geschreven:
> 
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
> >> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf
> >> Of Phil Blundell
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 12:20 PM
> >> To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
> >> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/4] gmp: also generate the libgmpcxx
> >> library & package it properly
> >>
> >> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 11:30 -0800, nitin.a.kamble@intel.com wrote:
> >>> From: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> >>>
> >>> configure runs few checks to make sure c++ compiler and runtime are
> >> working
> >>> as expected with the --enable-cxx=detect option. And it enables
> >> building
> >>> of libgmpxx library.
> >>>
> >>> Same as earlier the libgmp.so.10.x file is packaged in the libgmp10
> >> package,
> >>> and a new package named libgmpxx4 is added for libgmpxx.so.4.x
> file.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org>
> >>
> >> Um, why does this patch have my name in Signed-off-by?
> >>
> >> p.
> >
> > Because I took the code from your email.
> 
> That still doesn't explain why you added a signed-off-by without
> asking. A SOB has a defined meaning, willy nilly adding people amounts
> to fraud.
> 
Phil, if you are not ok, then I can take out your signed-off from the commit. Let me know.

Nitin
Phil Blundell Nov. 29, 2011, 10:05 p.m.
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 13:08 -0800, Kamble, Nitin A wrote:
> > Um, why does this patch have my name in Signed-off-by?
>
> Because I took the code from your email.

Ah, I see.  Well, I appreciate you giving me the credit for that, and in
this particular instance I don't have a problem with it, but as a
general rule it isn't the done thing to add "Signed-off-by" lines naming
other people.  A note in the commit message saying that you'd taken the
code from my email would have been fine.

p.
Nitin A Kamble Nov. 29, 2011, 10:51 p.m.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> Phil Blundell
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 2:06 PM
> To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/4] gmp: also generate the libgmpcxx
> library & package it properly
> 
> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 13:08 -0800, Kamble, Nitin A wrote:
> > > Um, why does this patch have my name in Signed-off-by?
> >
> > Because I took the code from your email.
> 
> Ah, I see.  Well, I appreciate you giving me the credit for that, and
> in
> this particular instance I don't have a problem with it, but as a
> general rule it isn't the done thing to add "Signed-off-by" lines
> naming
> other people.  A note in the commit message saying that you'd taken the
> code from my email would have been fine.
> 
> p.

Thank you for the explanation. BTW where can I find official rules about signed-off-by line

Nitin

> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Phil Blundell Dec. 1, 2011, 4:57 p.m.
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 14:51 -0800, Kamble, Nitin A wrote:
> Thank you for the explanation. BTW where can I find official rules about signed-off-by line

The "Signed-off-by" idiom originated with the kernel people and
Documentation/SubmittingPatches in the linux source tree contains a
fairly good description of what it means to them.

I'm not sure that there are any official rules about its use in OE apart
from what's in the Commit Patch Message Guidelines (see the wiki).

p.
Richard Purdie Dec. 1, 2011, 5:17 p.m.
On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 16:57 +0000, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 14:51 -0800, Kamble, Nitin A wrote:
> > Thank you for the explanation. BTW where can I find official rules about signed-off-by line
> 
> The "Signed-off-by" idiom originated with the kernel people and
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches in the linux source tree contains a
> fairly good description of what it means to them.
> 
> I'm not sure that there are any official rules about its use in OE apart
> from what's in the Commit Patch Message Guidelines (see the wiki).

The yocto docs do mention what the specific meaning of the line is.
Nobody should be adding that line unless they understand what it means.
Its based off the kernel's model.

http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/current/dev-manual/dev-manual.html#how-to-submit-a-change

Cheers,

Richard
Koen Kooi Dec. 1, 2011, 5:26 p.m.
Op 1 dec. 2011, om 18:17 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:

> On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 16:57 +0000, Phil Blundell wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 14:51 -0800, Kamble, Nitin A wrote:
>>> Thank you for the explanation. BTW where can I find official rules about signed-off-by line
>> 
>> The "Signed-off-by" idiom originated with the kernel people and
>> Documentation/SubmittingPatches in the linux source tree contains a
>> fairly good description of what it means to them.
>> 
>> I'm not sure that there are any official rules about its use in OE apart
>> from what's in the Commit Patch Message Guidelines (see the wiki).
> 
> The yocto docs do mention what the specific meaning of the line is.

<pedantic mode>But this is oe-core.</pedantic mode>. Shall we all agree it's the same for OE-core as well?
Joshua Lock Dec. 1, 2011, 6:37 p.m.
On 01/12/11 09:26, Koen Kooi wrote:
> 
> Op 1 dec. 2011, om 18:17 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 16:57 +0000, Phil Blundell wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 14:51 -0800, Kamble, Nitin A wrote:
>>>> Thank you for the explanation. BTW where can I find official rules about signed-off-by line
>>>
>>> The "Signed-off-by" idiom originated with the kernel people and
>>> Documentation/SubmittingPatches in the linux source tree contains a
>>> fairly good description of what it means to them.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that there are any official rules about its use in OE apart
>>> from what's in the Commit Patch Message Guidelines (see the wiki).
>>
>> The yocto docs do mention what the specific meaning of the line is.
> 
> <pedantic mode>But this is oe-core.</pedantic mode>. Shall we all agree it's the same for OE-core as well?

Isn't that the standard mode? ;-)

I expect folks have the same understanding as stated in the kernel and
Yocto docs when using SOB - I see no reason for OE Core to introduce
ambiguity.

Joshua
Koen Kooi Dec. 1, 2011, 7:29 p.m.
Op 1 dec. 2011, om 19:37 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende geschreven:

> 
> 
> On 01/12/11 09:26, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> 
>> Op 1 dec. 2011, om 18:17 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 16:57 +0000, Phil Blundell wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 14:51 -0800, Kamble, Nitin A wrote:
>>>>> Thank you for the explanation. BTW where can I find official rules about signed-off-by line
>>>> 
>>>> The "Signed-off-by" idiom originated with the kernel people and
>>>> Documentation/SubmittingPatches in the linux source tree contains a
>>>> fairly good description of what it means to them.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not sure that there are any official rules about its use in OE apart
>>>> from what's in the Commit Patch Message Guidelines (see the wiki).
>>> 
>>> The yocto docs do mention what the specific meaning of the line is.
>> 
>> <pedantic mode>But this is oe-core.</pedantic mode>. Shall we all agree it's the same for OE-core as well?
> 
> Isn't that the standard mode? ;-)

It actually is, glad someone noticed :)

> I expect folks have the same understanding as stated in the kernel and
> Yocto docs when using SOB - I see no reason for OE Core to introduce
> ambiguity.
> 
> Joshua
> -- 
> Joshua Lock
>        Yocto Project "Johannes factotum"
>        Intel Open Source Technology Centre
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Philip Balister Dec. 1, 2011, 11:42 p.m.
On 12/01/2011 12:26 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> 
> Op 1 dec. 2011, om 18:17 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 16:57 +0000, Phil Blundell wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 14:51 -0800, Kamble, Nitin A wrote:
>>>> Thank you for the explanation. BTW where can I find official rules about signed-off-by line
>>>
>>> The "Signed-off-by" idiom originated with the kernel people and
>>> Documentation/SubmittingPatches in the linux source tree contains a
>>> fairly good description of what it means to them.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that there are any official rules about its use in OE apart
>>> from what's in the Commit Patch Message Guidelines (see the wiki).
>>
>> The yocto docs do mention what the specific meaning of the line is.
> 
> <pedantic mode>But this is oe-core.</pedantic mode>. Shall we all agree it's the same for OE-core as well?

Yes. No sense having the same phrases mean different things in different
layers.

Philip

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core