[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] openpgm: new package

Thomas Petazzoni thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com
Mon Feb 11 14:14:29 UTC 2013


Dear Alexander Lukichev,

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:18:18 +0200, Alexander Lukichev wrote:

> Thanks, I originally based this on 2012.08 release and taught myself
> by manual
> (http://www.buildroot.net/downloads/manual/manual.html#patch-policy).
> I did not closely follow the mailing list. I'll fix this.

No problem. Note that the manual correctly state that patches should be
named <packagename>-*.patch, and not
<packagename>-<packageversion>-*.patch. That said, the "*" can be
interpreted in a number of ways, so maybe we should add some examples
to clarify what we want in terms of patch naming.

> > Any reason not to package the most recent version available? Are
> > there incompatibilities between 5.1.118 and 5.2.121 that makes
> > 5.2.121 unusable for zeromq?
> I do recall that there were, for zeromq-2.2.0, though I'm not able to
> tell what went wrong back then. Hence two versions were tried: first
> the more recent, then 5.1.118-1~dfsg. Modifications in those two
> patches are the same, so it's no use to have two files. I'll check
> more closely if zeromq-2.2.0 can be made to work with the recent
> version of openpgm.  

Great, thanks.

> >> +@@ -284,7 +284,8 @@ AC_RUN_IFELSE(
> >> + 	[AC_MSG_RESULT([yes])
> >> + 		pgm_unaligned_pointers=yes],
> >> + 	[AC_MSG_RESULT([no])
> >> +-		pgm_unaligned_pointers=no])
> >> ++		pgm_unaligned_pointers=no],
> >> ++	pgm_unaligned_pointers=yes)
> > 
> > Are we sure that pgm_unaligned_pointers=yes will be valid on all
> > architectures?
> > 
> > Rather than hardcoding this, I would prefer if it was possible to
> > pass a variable in the configure script environment to tell the
> > result of this test.
> 
> Is there a way to determine if target architecture has unaligned
> pointers or aligned pointers?

I am wondering whether ac_cv_lbl_unaligned_fail (that we set in
package/Makefile.in) serves the same purpose or not.

> > Strange, the project is called openpgm but the tarball is named
> > libpgm? Usually, we try to use the upstream name, but here it's
> > unclear if we should choose libpgm or openpgm. Does the openpgm
> > projects delivers something else than libpgm?
> 
> Not as far as I know.

Then maybe we want to call the package libpgm ?

> Well, for that matter, these tests too may not be valid for all the
> target architectures. Could this somehow be determined in advance
> or?.. OK, I think I know the answer. Is it OK to leave them as is? An
> alternative would be to try to prompt the user in Kconfig.

The values you're passing seem sane enough to me.

> >> +OPENPGM_POST_EXTRACT_HOOKS += OPENPGM_EXTRACT_FIX
> > Have you tried to replace this post extract fix by:
> > OPENPGM_SUBDIR = openpgm/pgm/
> >  ?
> 
> No. I will try. Thanks.

Thanks!

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com



More information about the buildroot mailing list