[Buildroot] [PATCH] package/bc: bump to 1.07.1
Matthew Weber
matthew.weber at rockwellcollins.com
Fri Sep 13 18:14:10 UTC 2019
Thomas,
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 12:46 PM Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni at bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Matt,
>
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:50:57 -0500
> Matt Weber <matthew.weber at rockwellcollins.com> wrote:
>
> > * Added license hash files
> > * Updated site to new GNU location
> > * Reconfig required to use newer automake
> > * Dropped patch for 01_array_initialize.patch as it was fixed
> > in the latest
> > * Refactored patches for makeinfo variable and write io errs
> > * Added new dc fix exit code patch from Debian sid
> > * Added new libmath offline gen cross-compile patch from Yocto
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Weber <matthew.weber at rockwellcollins.com>
>
> Do you know what is the upstream status for the different patches we
> had and that are still needed ?
For the patches that were kept in this bump, they were all still
pending and on the debian / yocto distro patch lists. I wasn't able
to find any upstream submissions. Are patches against gnu tools like
bc done directly to the maintainer ( Phil Nelson
<philnelson at acm.org>)? I could definitely send them out to him if
that makes sense.
>
> > diff --git a/package/bc/0001-bc-use-MAKEINFO-variable-for-docs.patch b/package/bc/0001-bc-use-MAKEINFO-variable-for-docs.patch
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000..6f82e9f82e
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/package/bc/0001-bc-use-MAKEINFO-variable-for-docs.patch
> > @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
> > +From 66d30778ec5bf98dbd106a3287d17fe0b5123490 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > +From: Matt Weber <matthew.weber at rockwellcollins.com>
> > +Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 21:57:35 -0500
> > +Subject: [PATCH] bc: use MAKEINFO variable for docs
> > +
> > +Use the appropiate MAKEINFO variable rather than the hardcoded makeinfo
> > +command directly, otherwise missing logic never works.
> > +
> > +Fixes:
> > +http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/b0b/b0b9dced0014a5a8026fa972f95085e8bd16a07b/
> > +
> > +[Recreated for 1.0.7.1 by Matt W]
> > +Signed-off-by: Gustavo Zacarias <gustavo at zacarias.com.ar>
> > +Signed-off-by: Matthew Weber <matthew.weber at rockwellcollins.com>
> > +---
> > + doc/Makefile.in | 2 +-
> > + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> This patch is useless, because it modifies Makefile.in, but you have
> AUTORECONF = YES, so Makefile.in will be regenerated from Makefile.am.
>
Oops, true and it isn't easy to test on my system. When recreating I
definitely did use the wrong file.
> > +[Reformatted to GIT for 1.0.7.1 by Matt W]
> > +Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton at intel.com>
> > +Signed-off-by: Matthew Weber <matthew.weber at rockwellcollins.com>
> > +---
> > + bc/Makefile.am | 8 --------
>
> You're modifying Makefile.am here.
>
> > +# Need to reconf to fix automake-1.14: command not found
> > +BC_AUTORECONF = YES
>
> And so the reason for the autoreconf = yes is not "automake: command
> not found", it's because you're patching Makefile.am, so it is newer
> than the corresponding Makefile.in, and consequently, the autotools
> machinery tries to regenerate it by calling automake. So the comment
> here should be the usual:
>
> # We're patching Makefile.am
>
> or, the file name of the patch touching Makefile.am.
True, I'll update the comment.
Thanks for the review and I'll work on spinning a v2 this afternoon.
Matt
More information about the buildroot
mailing list