[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] coreutils: Do not install uptime
Vicente Olivert Riera
Vincent.Riera at imgtec.com
Thu Sep 11 09:13:40 UTC 2014
On 09/10/2014 09:45 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Vicente Olivert Riera,
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:30:05 +0100, Vicente Olivert Riera wrote:
>> coreutils' uptime doesn't work and its execution fails with a message
>> like this one:
>> uptime: couldn't get boot time: No such file or directory
>> busybox and procps-ng provide a working alternative.
>> This is a common old problem as we can see here:
>> Signed-off-by: Vicente Olivert Riera <Vincent.Riera at imgtec.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Markos.Chandras <Markos.Chandras at imgtec.com>
>> package/coreutils/coreutils.mk | 3 ++-
>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/package/coreutils/coreutils.mk b/package/coreutils/coreutils.mk
>> index 07a1347..7457b79 100644
>> --- a/package/coreutils/coreutils.mk
>> +++ b/package/coreutils/coreutils.mk
>> @@ -61,7 +61,8 @@ COREUTILS_CONF_ENV = ac_cv_c_restrict=no \
>> COREUTILS_CONF_OPT = --disable-rpath \
>> - --enable-install-program=hostname
>> + --enable-install-program=hostname \
>> + --enable-no-install-program=uptime
> I think this is not the proper fix. A more appropriate fix is to
> actually get uptime to work, which is a oneliner. See my patch posted
> at http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/387971/.
I have tested it and it works fine.
> I'll mark your patch as Rejected in patchwork. Of course, if you
> disagree, feel free to turn back your patch to the "New" state with an
I don't disagree. I also think it's better to have a working coreutils'
uptime instead of disabling it.
> Thanks a lot for noticing this issue in the first place!
You are welcome.
More information about the buildroot