upgrades & misc fixes
cover upgrades & misc fixes
From: Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>
The following changes since commit 2c79c9eb7ef8ef0aef8c3096c3c4387e28e56ea2:
pulseaudio: add 0.9.23 (2011-07-07 13:45:32 +0100)
are available in the git repository at:
git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib nitin/misc
http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=nitin/misc
Nitin A Kamble (7):
binutils: upgrade from 2.21 to 2.21.1
gmp: upgrade from 5.0.1 to 5.0.2
distro tracking: update devel.toolchain recipes's fields
binutils: package unpackaged files
eglibc: fix installed but not packaged files
gcc-runtime: fix installed but unpackaged files
elfutils: fix compilations issue with the gcc 4.7
.../conf/distro/include/distro_tracking_fields.inc | 33 +-
meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc-package.inc | 6 +-
meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc_2.13.bb | 2 +-
...n_2.21.bb => binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} | 2 +-
...tils-cross_2.21.bb => binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} | 0
...rosssdk_2.21.bb => binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} | 2 +-
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc | 2 +
.../110-arm-eabi-conf.patch | 0
.../binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch | 0
.../binutils-poison.patch | 0
.../binutils-pr12366.patch | 0
.../binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch | 0
...binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch | 0
...binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch | 0
...ils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch | 0
.../binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch | 0
.../binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch | 0
.../libiberty_path_fix.patch | 0
.../libtool-2.4-update.patch | 1725 ++++++++++----------
.../libtool-rpath-fix.patch | 0
.../{binutils_2.21.bb => binutils_2.21.1.bb} | 5 +-
.../{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/arm_backend.diff | 0
.../do-autoreconf.diff | 0
.../elf_additions.diff | 0
.../elfutils-fsize.patch | 0
.../elfutils/elfutils/fix_for_gcc-4.7.patch | 73 +
.../{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/hppa_backend.diff | 0
.../{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/i386_dis.h | 0
.../{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/m68k_backend.diff | 0
.../{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/mempcpy.patch | 0
.../{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/mips_backend.diff | 0
.../redhat-portability.diff | 0
.../redhat-robustify.diff | 0
.../remove-unused.patch | 0
.../testsuite-ignore-elflint.diff | 0
.../uclibc-support.patch | 0
.../{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/x86_64_dis.h | 0
meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils_0.148.bb | 3 +-
meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-package-runtime.inc | 2 +-
.../gmp/{gmp_5.0.1.bb => gmp_5.0.2.bb} | 4 +-
40 files changed, 977 insertions(+), 882 deletions(-)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.bb => binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} (86%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross_2.21.bb => binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-crosssdk_2.21.bb => binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} (96%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/110-arm-eabi-conf.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-poison.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-pr12366.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/libiberty_path_fix.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/libtool-2.4-update.patch (94%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/libtool-rpath-fix.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils_2.21.bb => binutils_2.21.1.bb} (88%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/arm_backend.diff (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/do-autoreconf.diff (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/elf_additions.diff (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/elfutils-fsize.patch (100%)
create mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils/fix_for_gcc-4.7.patch
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/hppa_backend.diff (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/i386_dis.h (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/m68k_backend.diff (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/mempcpy.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/mips_backend.diff (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/redhat-portability.diff (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/redhat-robustify.diff (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/remove-unused.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/testsuite-ignore-elflint.diff (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/uclibc-support.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/x86_64_dis.h (100%)
rename meta/recipes-support/gmp/{gmp_5.0.1.bb => gmp_5.0.2.bb} (67%)Signature · 1 line
1.7.4.4
PATCH 1/7 binutils: upgrade from 2.21 to 2.21.1
From: Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>
---
...n_2.21.bb => binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} | 0
...tils-cross_2.21.bb => binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} | 0
...rosssdk_2.21.bb => binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} | 0
.../110-arm-eabi-conf.patch | 0
.../binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch | 0
.../binutils-poison.patch | 0
.../binutils-pr12366.patch | 0
.../binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch | 0
...binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch | 0
...binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch | 0
...ils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch | 0
.../binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch | 0
.../binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch | 0
.../libiberty_path_fix.patch | 0
.../libtool-2.4-update.patch | 1725 ++++++++++----------
.../libtool-rpath-fix.patch | 0
.../{binutils_2.21.bb => binutils_2.21.1.bb} | 7 +-
17 files changed, 871 insertions(+), 861 deletions(-)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.bb => binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross_2.21.bb => binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-crosssdk_2.21.bb => binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/110-arm-eabi-conf.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-poison.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-pr12366.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/libiberty_path_fix.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/libtool-2.4-update.patch (94%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/libtool-rpath-fix.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils_2.21.bb => binutils_2.21.1.bb} (87%)meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.bb +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-cross_2.21.bb +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-crosssdk_2.21.bb +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/110-arm-eabi-conf.patch renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.21/110-arm-eabi-conf.patch +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.21/binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/binutils-poison.patch renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.21/binutils-poison.patch +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/binutils-pr12366.patch renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.21/binutils-pr12366.patch +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.21/binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.21/binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.21/binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/binutils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.21/binutils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.21/binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.21/binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/libiberty_path_fix.patch renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.21/libiberty_path_fix.patch +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/libtool-2.4-update.patch renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.21/libtool-2.4-update.patch +868 -857
3,000 lines not on this page · raw message
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/libtool-rpath-fix.patch renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.21/libtool-rpath-fix.patch +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils_2.21.1.bb renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils_2.21.bb +3 -4
Lines of this file are not shown. View the raw message.
The rest of this diff is not shown. View the raw message.
Signature · 1 line
1.7.4.4
Part of the diff is not shown here. View the raw message.
PATCH 2/7 gmp: upgrade from 5.0.1 to 5.0.2
From: Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>
---
.../gmp/{gmp_5.0.1.bb => gmp_5.0.2.bb} | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
rename meta/recipes-support/gmp/{gmp_5.0.1.bb => gmp_5.0.2.bb} (67%)meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp_5.0.2.bb renamed from meta/recipes-support/gmp/gmp_5.0.1.bb +2 -2
@@ -8,5 +8,5 @@ SRC_URI_append += "file://sh4-asmfix.patch \ file://use-includedir.patch " -SRC_URI[md5sum] = "6bac6df75c192a13419dfd71d19240a7" -SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "a2a610f01fd3298dc08c87bf30498c2402590e1bcb227fc40b15ee6d280939fb" +SRC_URI[md5sum] = "0bbaedc82fb30315b06b1588b9077cd3" +SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "dbc2db76fdd4e99f85d5e35aa378ed62c283e0d586b91bd8703aff75a7804c28"
Signature · 1 line
1.7.4.4
PATCH 3/7 distro tracking: update devel.toolchain recipes's fields
In reply to [email protected]From: Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>
--- .../conf/distro/include/distro_tracking_fields.inc | 33 +++++++++++-------- 1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
meta/conf/distro/include/distro_tracking_fields.inc +19 -14
@@ -2862,8 +2862,9 @@ RECIPE_LAST_UPDATE_pn-sysprof = "Dec 8, 2010" RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-sysprof = "Tom Zanussi <[email protected]>" RECIPE_STATUS_pn-binutils="green" -RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-binutils="2.20.1" -RECIPE_LAST_UPDATE_pn-binutils = "Jun 3, 2010" +RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-binutils="2.21.1" +RECIPE_LAST_UPDATE_pn-binutils = "Jul 06, 2011" +RECIPE_MANUAL_CHECK_DATE_pn-binutils = "Jul 06, 2011" RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-binutils = "Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>" RECIPE_STATUS_pn-ldconfig-native = "red"
@@ -2871,9 +2872,9 @@ RECIPE_LAST_UPDATE_pn-ldconfig-native = "Nov 23, 2007" DISTRO_PN_ALIAS_pn-ldconfig-native = "Ubuntu=libc-bin Fedora=glibc" RECIPE_STATUS_pn-gcc="red" -RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-gcc="4.5.2" -RECIPE_LATEST_RELEASE_DATE_pn-gcc="2010/03/03" -RECIPE_LAST_UPDATE_pn-gcc = "Nov 8, 2010" +RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-gcc="4.6.1" +RECIPE_LAST_UPDATE_pn-gcc = "May 1, 2011" +RECIPE_MANUAL_CHECK_DATE_pn-gcc = "Jul 06, 2011" RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-gcc = "Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>" RECIPE_STATUS_pn-autoconf="red"
@@ -2885,6 +2886,7 @@ RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-autoconf = "Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>" RECIPE_STATUS_pn-automake="green" RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-automake="1.11.1" RECIPE_LAST_UPDATE_pn-automake = "Jan 29, 2010" +RECIPE_MANUAL_CHECK_DATE_pn-automake = "Jul 06, 2011" RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-automake = "Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>" RECIPE_STATUS_pn-bison="green"
@@ -2911,13 +2913,13 @@ RECIPE_STATUS_pn-fstests="green" RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-fstests="0.0+svnr426" DISTRO_PN_ALIAS_pn-fstests = "OpenedHand" RECIPE_LAST_UPDATE_pn-fstests = "Dec 7, 2010" -RECIPE_MANUAL_CHECK_DATE_pn-fstests = "Apr 7, 2011" +RECIPE_MANUAL_CHECK_DATE_pn-fstests = "Jul 06, 2011" RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-fstests = "Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>" RECIPE_STATUS_pn-gdb="green" RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-gdb="7.2" RECIPE_LAST_UPDATE_pn-gdb = "Nov 8, 2010" -RECIPE_MANUAL_CHECK_DATE_pn-gdb = "Apr 7, 2011" +RECIPE_MANUAL_CHECK_DATE_pn-gdb = "Jul 06, 2011" RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-gdb = "Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>" RECIPE_STATUS_pn-intltool="green"
@@ -2928,6 +2930,7 @@ RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-intltool = "Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>" RECIPE_STATUS_pn-libtool="green" RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-libtool="2.4" RECIPE_LAST_UPDATE_pn-libtool = "Nov 8, 2010" +RECIPE_MANUAL_CHECK_DATE_pn-libtool = "Jul 06, 2011" RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-libtool = "Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>" RECIPE_STATUS_pn-linux-libc-headers="green"
@@ -2938,7 +2941,7 @@ RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-linux-libc-headers = "Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel. RECIPE_STATUS_pn-lsof="green" RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-lsof="4.84" RECIPE_LAST_UPDATE_pn-lsof = "Nov 8, 2010" -RECIPE_MANUAL_CHECK_DATE_pn-lsof = "May 23, 2011" +RECIPE_MANUAL_CHECK_DATE_pn-lsof = "Jul 06, 2011" RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-lsof = "Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>" RECIPE_STATUS_pn-make="green"
@@ -2953,7 +2956,7 @@ RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-postinsts = "Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>" RECIPE_STATUS_pn-nasm="green" RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-nasm="2.07" -RECIPE_MANUAL_CHECK_DATE_pn-nasm = "Apr 7, 2011" +RECIPE_MANUAL_CHECK_DATE_pn-nasm = "Jul 06, 2011" RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-nasm = "Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>" RECIPE_STATUS_pn-perl="red" # upgrade needed
@@ -3035,17 +3038,18 @@ RECIPE_STATUS_pn-gnu-config="green" RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-gnu-config="0.0+git3155524" DISTRO_PN_ALIAS_pn-gnu-config = "OpenedHand" RECIPE_LAST_UPDATE_pn-gnu-config = "Jun 21, 2010" -RECIPE_MANUAL_CHECK_DATE_pn-gnu-config = "May 23, 2011" +RECIPE_MANUAL_CHECK_DATE_pn-gnu-config = "Jul 06, 2011" RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-gnu-config = "Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>" RECIPE_STATUS_pn-mpfr="green" RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-mpfr="3.0.0" -RECIPE_MANUAL_CHECK_DATE_pn-mpfr = "Apr 7, 2011" +RECIPE_MANUAL_CHECK_DATE_pn-mpfr = "Jul 06, 2011" RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-mpfr = "Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>" RECIPE_STATUS_pn-gmp="green" -RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-gmp="5.0.1" -RECIPE_LAST_UPDATE_pn-gmp = "Aug 27, 2010" +RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-gmp="5.0.2" +RECIPE_LAST_UPDATE_pn-gmp = "Jul 06, 2011" +RECIPE_MANUAL_CHECK_DATE_pn-gmp = "Jul 06, 2011" RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-gmp = "Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>" RECIPE_STATUS_pn-libmpc="green"
@@ -3056,6 +3060,7 @@ DISTRO_PN_ALIAS_pn-libmpc = "Fedora=libmpc OpenSuse=libmpc2" RECIPE_STATUS_pn-byacc="red" RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-byacc="20101229" +RECIPE_MANUAL_CHECK_DATE_pn-byacc = "Jul 06, 2011" RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-byacc = "Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>" RECIPE_STATUS_pn-libconvert-asn1-perl="green"
@@ -3079,6 +3084,7 @@ RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-cmake-native = "Dongxiao Xu <[email protected]>" RECIPE_STATUS_pn-m4="green" RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-m4="1.4.15" RECIPE_LAST_UPDATE_pn-m4 = "Nov 23, 2010" +RECIPE_MANUAL_CHECK_DATE_pn-m4 = "Jul 06, 2011" RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-m4="Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>" RECIPE_COMMENTS_pn-m4= "Dongxiao Xu <[email protected]> will own GPLv2 m4"
@@ -5578,7 +5584,6 @@ RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-lsbsetup = "0.9" RECIPE_MANUAL_CHECK_DATE_pn-lsbsetup = "Jan 17, 2011" RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-libxml-simple-perl = "2.18" RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-talloc = "2.0.5" -RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-libtool-cross = "2.4" RECIPE_STATUS_pn-gthumb = "red" RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-gthumb = "2.12.2"
Signature · 1 line
1.7.4.4
PATCH 4/7 binutils: package unpackaged files
In reply to [email protected]From: Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>
To fix these package qa warnings
WARNING: For recipe binutils, the following files were installed but not shipped in any package: WARNING: /usr/bin/ld.bfd WARNING: /usr/bin/elfedit
--- .../binutils/binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb | 2 +- .../binutils/binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb | 2 +- meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc | 2 ++ meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils_2.21.1.bb | 2 +- 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb +1 -1
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@ require binutils_${PV}.bb require binutils-cross-canadian.inc -PR = "r0" +PR = "r1"
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb +1 -1
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ inherit crosssdk PROVIDES = "virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}binutils-crosssdk" -PR = "r0" +PR = "r1" do_configure_prepend () { sed -i 's#/usr/local/lib /lib /usr/lib#${SDKPATHNATIVE}/lib ${SDKPATHNATIVE}/usr/lib /usr/local/lib /lib /usr/lib#' ${S}/ld/configure.tgt
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc +2 -0
@@ -35,11 +35,13 @@ FILES_${PN}-symlinks = " \ ${bindir}/c++filt \ ${bindir}/gprof \ ${bindir}/ld \ + ${bindir}/ld.bfd \ ${bindir}/nm \ ${bindir}/objcopy \ ${bindir}/objdump \ ${bindir}/ranlib \ ${bindir}/readelf \ + ${bindir}/elfedit \ ${bindir}/size \ ${bindir}/strip"
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils_2.21.1.bb +1 -1
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ require binutils.inc -PR = "r0" +PR = "r1" LIC_FILES_CHKSUM="\ file://src-release;endline=17;md5=4830a9ef968f3b18dd5e9f2c00db2d35\
Signature · 1 line
1.7.4.4
Re: [PATCH 4/7] binutils: package unpackaged files
Quoted 53 lines · On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:25 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>
To fix these package qa warnings
WARNING: For recipe binutils, the following files were installed but not shipped in any package:
WARNING:/usr/bin/ld.bfd
WARNING:/usr/bin/elfeditSigned-off-by Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>---
.../binutils/binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb | 2 +- .../binutils/binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb | 2 +- meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc | 2 ++ meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils_2.21.1.bb | 2 +-4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb +0
-0@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@require binutils_${PV}.bb
require binutils-cross-canadian.incmeta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb +1
-1-PR = "r0" +PR = "r1"meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb +0
-0@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ inherit crosssdkPROVIDES = "virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}binutils-crosssdk"
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb +1
-1-PR = "r0" +PR = "r1"do_configure_prepend () {
sed -i 's#/usr/local/lib /lib /usr/lib#${SDKPATHNATIVE}/lib ${SDKPATHNATIVE}/usr/lib/usr/local/lib/lib /usr/lib#' ${S}/ld/configure.tgtmeta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc +2
-0@@ -35,11 +35,13 @@ FILES_${PN}-symlinks = " \ ${bindir}/c++filt \ ${bindir}/gprof \ ${bindir}/ld \ + ${bindir}/ld.bfd \ ${bindir}/nm \ ${bindir}/objcopy \ ${bindir}/objdump \ ${bindir}/ranlib \ ${bindir}/readelf \ + ${bindir}/elfedit \ ${bindir}/size \
Quoted 2 lines
${bindir}/strip"
I wonder if symlinks is appropriate name for this Package if it does not have symlinks
Quoted 21 lines
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils_2.21.1.bb +0
-0@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@require binutils.inc
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils_2.21.1.bb +1
-1-PR = "r0" +PR = "r1"LIC_FILES_CHKSUM="\
file://src-release;endline=17;md5=4830a9ef968f3b18dd5e9f2c00db2d35\
--
1.7.4.4_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [PATCH 4/7] binutils: package unpackaged files
In reply to [email protected]Quoted 44 lines · On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 13:25 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
From: Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>
To fix these package qa warnings
WARNING: For recipe binutils, the following files were installed but not shipped in any package: WARNING: /usr/bin/ld.bfd WARNING: /usr/bin/elfeditSigned-off-by Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>--- .../binutils/binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb | 2 +- .../binutils/binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb | 2 +- meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc | 2 ++ meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils_2.21.1.bb | 2 +- 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb +1
-1@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@ require binutils_${PV}.bb require binutils-cross-canadian.inc -PR = "r0" +PR = "r1"meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb +1
-1@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ inherit crosssdk PROVIDES = "virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}binutils-crosssdk" -PR = "r0" +PR = "r1" do_configure_prepend () { sed -i 's#/usr/local/lib /lib /usr/lib#${SDKPATHNATIVE}/lib ${SDKPATHNATIVE}/usr/lib /usr/local/lib /lib /usr/lib#' ${S}/ld/configure.tgtmeta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc +0
-0@@ -35,11 +35,13 @@ FILES_${PN}-symlinks = " \ ${bindir}/c++filt \ ${bindir}/gprof \
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc FILES_${PN}-symlinks = " \ · line 46
Quoted 10 lines
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc +2
-0${bindir}/ld \ + ${bindir}/ld.bfd \ ${bindir}/nm \ ${bindir}/objcopy \ ${bindir}/objdump \ ${bindir}/ranlib \ ${bindir}/readelf \ + ${bindir}/elfedit \ ${bindir}/size \ ${bindir}/strip"
Nitin, do you know if the ld.bfd above is a hardlinked copy of ld?
It may be better to turn this into a symlink if so (although our packaging process should preserve hardlinks these days).
Cheers,
Richard
Re: [PATCH 4/7] binutils: package unpackaged files
Quoted 7 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 7 lines
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc +1
-0@@ -35,11 +35,13 @@ FILES_${PN}-symlinks = " \ ${bindir}/c++filt \ ${bindir}/gprof \ ${bindir}/ld \ + ${bindir}/ld.bfd \ ${bindir}/nm \ ${bindir}/objcopy \
Quoted 8 lines
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc FILES_${PN}-symlinks = " \ · line 46
Quoted 6 lines
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc +1
-0${bindir}/objdump \ ${bindir}/ranlib \ ${bindir}/readelf \ + ${bindir}/elfedit \ ${bindir}/size \ ${bindir}/strip"Nitin, do you know if the ld.bfd above is a hardlinked copy of ld?
If you're getting ld.bfd at all (at least with our current recipes) then it probably means that ${bindir}/ld is gold. So in that case they oughtn't to be symlinked.
p.
Re: [PATCH 4/7] binutils: package unpackaged files
Quoted 27 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Phil Blundell
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 8:34 AM
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 4/7] binutils: package unpackaged filesQuoted 7 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 7 lines
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc +1
-0@@ -35,11 +35,13 @@ FILES_${PN}-symlinks = " \ ${bindir}/c++filt \ ${bindir}/gprof \ ${bindir}/ld \ + ${bindir}/ld.bfd \ ${bindir}/nm \ ${bindir}/objcopy \Quoted 8 lines
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc FILES_${PN}-symlinks = " \ · line 46
Quoted 6 lines
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc +1
-0${bindir}/objdump \ ${bindir}/ranlib \ ${bindir}/readelf \ + ${bindir}/elfedit \ ${bindir}/size \ ${bindir}/strip"Nitin, do you know if the ld.bfd above is a hardlinked copy of ld?
Quoted 5 lines
If you're getting ld.bfd at all (at least with our current recipes) then
it probably means that ${bindir}/ld is gold. So in that case they oughtn't to be symlinked.
Just verified that ld.bfd is a soft link to i586-poky-linux-ld.bfd
So what is the right think here, rm -f ld.bfd, or putting it in the symlinks package is good?
Nitin
Quoted 7 lines
p.
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [PATCH 4/7] binutils: package unpackaged files
Quoted 3 lines · Nitin A
Just verified that ld.bfd is a soft link to i586-poky-linux-ld.bfd
So what is the right think here, rm -f ld.bfd, or putting it in the symlinks package is good?
Do the same thing that you do with ${bindir}/ld, whatever that is. Hopefully it isn't rm -f :-)
p.
Re: [PATCH 4/7] binutils: package unpackaged files
In reply to Richard PurdieQuoted 78 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Purdie
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 8:27 AM
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 4/7] binutils: package unpackaged filesQuoted 4 lines · On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 13:25 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
From: Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>
To fix these package qa warnings
WARNING: For recipe binutils, the following files were installed butnot shipped in any package:
Quoted 4 lines
WARNING: /usr/bin/ld.bfd WARNING: /usr/bin/elfeditSigned-off-by Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>Review
Quoted 8 lines
--- .../binutils/binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb | 2 +- .../binutils/binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb | 2 +- meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc | 2 ++ meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils_2.21.1.bb | 2 +- 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)(quoted diff) +0
-0canadian_2.21.1.bb b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-cross- canadian_2.21.1.bb
Quoted 2 lines
index 7dad2a6..e91e7dc 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb
Quoted 1 line
+++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-cross-
canadian_2.21.1.bb
Review
Quoted 6 lines
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb +1
-1@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@ require binutils_${PV}.bb require binutils-cross-canadian.inc -PR = "r0" +PR = "r1"(quoted diff) +0
-0crosssdk_2.21.1.bb b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils- crosssdk_2.21.1.bb
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb inherit crosssdk · line 10
Quoted 12 lines
index 0d6efff..21289cd 100644
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb +1
-1@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ inherit crosssdk PROVIDES = "virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}binutils-crosssdk" -PR = "r0" +PR = "r1" do_configure_prepend () { sed -i 's#/usr/local/lib /lib /usr/lib#${SDKPATHNATIVE}/lib${SDKPATHNATIVE}/usr/lib
/usr/local/lib/lib /usr/lib#' ${S}/ld/configure.tgtReview
Quoted 1 line
(quoted diff) +0
-0b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc
Quoted 6 lines
index 08c14b2..9a6b9c8 100644
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc +0
-0@@ -35,11 +35,13 @@ FILES_${PN}-symlinks = " \ ${bindir}/c++filt \ ${bindir}/gprof \meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc FILES_${PN}-symlinks = " \ · line 46
Quoted 10 lines
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc +2
-0${bindir}/ld \ + ${bindir}/ld.bfd \ ${bindir}/nm \ ${bindir}/objcopy \ ${bindir}/objdump \ ${bindir}/ranlib \ ${bindir}/readelf \ + ${bindir}/elfedit \ ${bindir}/size \ ${bindir}/strip"Nitin, do you know if the ld.bfd above is a hardlinked copy of ld?
Quoted 3 lines
It may be better to turn this into a symlink if so (although our packaging process should preserve hardlinks these days).
Richard,
The ld.bfd is softlink to <target_tupple>_ld. Hence I put it in the symlinks package.
Nitin
Quoted 10 lines
Cheers,
Richard
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
PATCH 5/7 eglibc: fix installed but not packaged files
In reply to [email protected]From: Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>
Fixes these package QA warnings:
WARNING: For recipe eglibc, the following files were installed but not shipped in any package: WARNING: /etc/rpc WARNING: /etc/localtime
--- meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc-package.inc | 6 +++++- meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc_2.13.bb | 2 +- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc-package.inc +5 -1
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ RPROVIDES_eglibc-pcprofile = "glibc-pcprofile" RPROVIDES_eglibc-dbg = "glibc-dbg" libc_baselibs = "${base_libdir}/libcrypt*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libcrypt-*.so ${base_libdir}/libc.so.* ${base_libdir}/libc-*.so ${base_libdir}/libm*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libm-*.so ${base_libdir}/ld*.so.* ${base_libdir}/ld-*.so ${base_libdir}/libpthread*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libpthread-*.so ${base_libdir}/libresolv*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libresolv-*.so ${base_libdir}/librt*.so.* ${base_libdir}/librt-*.so ${base_libdir}/libutil*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libutil-*.so ${base_libdir}/libnsl*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libnsl-*.so ${base_libdir}/libnss_files*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libnss_files-*.so ${base_libdir}/libnss_compat*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libnss_compat-*.so ${base_libdir}/libnss_dns*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libnss_dns-*.so ${base_libdir}/libdl*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libdl-*.so ${base_libdir}/libanl*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libanl-*.so ${base_libdir}/libBrokenLocale*.so.* ${base_libdir}/libBrokenLocale-*.so" -FILES_${PN} = "${libc_baselibs} ${libexecdir}/* ${@base_conditional('USE_LDCONFIG', '1', '${base_sbindir}/ldconfig ${sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf', '', d)}" +FILES_${PN} = "${libc_baselibs} ${libexecdir}/* ${sysconfdir}/rpc ${@base_conditional('USE_LDCONFIG', '1', '${base_sbindir}/ldconfig ${sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf', '', d)}" FILES_ldd${PKGSUFFIX} = "${bindir}/ldd" FILES_libsegfault${PKGSUFFIX} = "${base_libdir}/libSegFault*" FILES_libcidn = "${base_libdir}/libcidn-*.so ${base_libdir}/libcidn.so.*"
@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ DESCRIPTION_libsotruss = "Library to support sotruss which traces calls through inherit libc-common +do_install_append () { + rm -f ${D}${sysconfdir}/localtime +} + do_install_locale () { dest=${D}/${includedir}/eglibc-locale-internal-${MULTIMACH_TARGET_SYS} install -d ${dest}${base_libdir} ${dest}${bindir} ${dest}${libdir} ${dest}${datadir}
meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc_2.13.bb +1 -1
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ SRCREV = "14157" DEPENDS += "gperf-native" FILESPATHPKG =. "eglibc-svn:" -PR = "r5" +PR = "r6" PR_append = "+svnr${SRCPV}" EGLIBC_BRANCH="eglibc-2_13"
Signature · 1 line
1.7.4.4
Re: [PATCH 5/7] eglibc: fix installed but not packaged files
meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc-package.inc RPROVIDES_eglibc-pcprofile = "glibc-pcprofile" · line 56
Quoted 2 lines · On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 13:25 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc-package.inc +1
-1-FILES_${PN} = "${libc_baselibs} ${libexecdir}/* ${@base_conditional('USE_LDCONFIG', '1', '${base_sbindir}/ldconfig ${sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf', '', d)}" +FILES_${PN} = "${libc_baselibs} ${libexecdir}/* ${sysconfdir}/rpc ${@base_conditional('USE_LDCONFIG', '1', '${base_sbindir}/ldconfig ${sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf', '', d)}"
I don't think we want /etc/rpc in libc6, it's just a waste of space if you aren't using sunrpc. Nobody has missed it thus far so I would be inclined to delete it, but it could go in a package of its own if there is a feeling that it's valuable.
p.
Re: [PATCH 5/7] eglibc: fix installed but not packaged files
Quoted 8 lines · Phil Blundell
meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc-package.inc RPROVIDES_eglibc-pcprofile = "glibc-pcprofile" · line 56
Quoted 2 lines · On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 13:25 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc-package.inc +1
-1-FILES_${PN} = "${libc_baselibs} ${libexecdir}/* ${@base_conditional('USE_LDCONFIG', '1', '${base_sbindir}/ldconfig ${sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf', '', d)}" +FILES_${PN} = "${libc_baselibs} ${libexecdir}/* ${sysconfdir}/rpc ${@base_conditional('USE_LDCONFIG', '1', '${base_sbindir}/ldconfig ${sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf', '', d)}"I don't think we want
/etc/rpcin libc6, it's just a waste of space if you aren't using sunrpc. Nobody has missed it thus far so I would be inclined to delete it, but it could go in a package of its own if there is a feeling that it's valuable.
Moreover sun rpc is now obsolete in glibc 2.14 onwards so probably removing it from package is right thing to do.
Quoted 10 lines
p.
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [PATCH 5/7] eglibc: fix installed but not packaged files
Quoted 10 lines · Khem Raj
Quoted 8 lines · Phil Blundell
meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc-package.inc RPROVIDES_eglibc-pcprofile = "glibc-pcprofile" · line 56
Quoted 2 lines · On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 13:25 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc-package.inc +1
-1-FILES_${PN} = "${libc_baselibs} ${libexecdir}/* ${@base_conditional('USE_LDCONFIG', '1', '${base_sbindir}/ldconfig ${sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf', '', d)}" +FILES_${PN} = "${libc_baselibs} ${libexecdir}/* ${sysconfdir}/rpc ${@base_conditional('USE_LDCONFIG', '1', '${base_sbindir}/ldconfig ${sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf', '', d)}"I don't think we want
/etc/rpcin libc6, it's just a waste of space if you aren't using sunrpc. Nobody has missed it thus far so I would be inclined to delete it, but it could go in a package of its own if there is a feeling that it's valuable.
Quoted 2 lines
Moreover sun rpc is now obsolete in glibc 2.14 onwards so probably removing it from package is right thing to do.
We have a line deleting this but the libc-locale split seems to have wiped out a few packaging fixes including the one that unbreaks it. I have a local patch pending to fix the deletion of this...
Cheers,
Richard
Re: [PATCH 5/7] eglibc: fix installed but not packaged files
In reply to Khem RajThanks for clarifications. I will rework the patch to take out the rpc. Nitin
Quoted 42 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Khem Raj
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 2:41 PM
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 5/7] eglibc: fix installed but not packaged filesQuoted 2 lines · Phil Blundell
Quoted 1 line · On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 13:25 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
-FILES_${PN} = "${libc_baselibs} ${libexecdir}/*
${@base_conditional('USE_LDCONFIG', '1', '${base_sbindir}/ldconfig
${sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf', '', d)}"Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
+FILES_${PN} = "${libc_baselibs} ${libexecdir}/* ${sysconfdir}/rpc
${@base_conditional('USE_LDCONFIG', '1', '${base_sbindir}/ldconfig
${sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf', '', d)}"Quoted 2 lines
I don't think we want
/etc/rpcin libc6, it's just a waste of spaceif
Quoted 2 lines
you aren't using sunrpc. Nobody has missed it thus far so I would be inclined to delete it, but it could go in a package of its own if
there
Quoted 1 line
is a feeling that it's valuable.
Moreover sun rpc is now obsolete in glibc 2.14 onwards so probably removing it from package is right thing to do.
Quoted 10 lines
p.
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
PATCH 6/7 gcc-runtime: fix installed but unpackaged files
In reply to [email protected]From: Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>
gcc recipes has changed, currently ${PV} is 4.6 and ${BINV} is 4.6.1 version.
Fix these QA warnings.
WARNING: For recipe gcc-runtime, the following files were installed but not shipped in any package: WARNING: /usr/share/gcc-4.6.1/python/libstdcxx/__init__.py WARNING: /usr/share/gcc-4.6.1/python/libstdcxx/v6/__init__.py WARNING: /usr/share/gcc-4.6.1/python/libstdcxx/v6/printers.py
--- meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-package-runtime.inc | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-package-runtime.inc +1 -1
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ RRECOMMENDS_${PN}-dbg = "" # include python debugging scripts FILES_${PN}-dbg += "\ ${libdir}/libstdc++.so.*-gdb.py \ - ${datadir}/gcc-${PV}/python/libstdcxx" + ${datadir}/gcc-${BINV}/python/libstdcxx" FILES_libg2c = "${target_libdir}/libg2c.so.*" FILES_libg2c-dev = "\
Signature · 1 line
1.7.4.4
PATCH 7/7 elfutils: fix compilations issue with the gcc 4.7
In reply to [email protected]From: Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>
---
.../{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/arm_backend.diff | 0
.../do-autoreconf.diff | 0
.../elf_additions.diff | 0
.../elfutils-fsize.patch | 0
.../elfutils/elfutils/fix_for_gcc-4.7.patch | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++
.../{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/hppa_backend.diff | 0
.../{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/i386_dis.h | 0
.../{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/m68k_backend.diff | 0
.../{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/mempcpy.patch | 0
.../{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/mips_backend.diff | 0
.../redhat-portability.diff | 0
.../redhat-robustify.diff | 0
.../remove-unused.patch | 0
.../testsuite-ignore-elflint.diff | 0
.../uclibc-support.patch | 0
.../{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/x86_64_dis.h | 0
meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils_0.148.bb | 3 +-
17 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/arm_backend.diff (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/do-autoreconf.diff (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/elf_additions.diff (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/elfutils-fsize.patch (100%)
create mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils/fix_for_gcc-4.7.patch
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/hppa_backend.diff (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/i386_dis.h (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/m68k_backend.diff (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/mempcpy.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/mips_backend.diff (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/redhat-portability.diff (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/redhat-robustify.diff (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/remove-unused.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/testsuite-ignore-elflint.diff (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/uclibc-support.patch (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/{elfutils-0.148 => elfutils}/x86_64_dis.h (100%)meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils/arm_backend.diff renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils-0.148/arm_backend.diff +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils/do-autoreconf.diff renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils-0.148/do-autoreconf.diff +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils/elf_additions.diff renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils-0.148/elf_additions.diff +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils/elfutils-fsize.patch renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils-0.148/elfutils-fsize.patch +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils/fix_for_gcc-4.7.patch new file +73 -0
73 lines not on this page · raw message
meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils/hppa_backend.diff renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils-0.148/hppa_backend.diff +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils/i386_dis.h renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils-0.148/i386_dis.h +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils/m68k_backend.diff renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils-0.148/m68k_backend.diff +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils/mempcpy.patch renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils-0.148/mempcpy.patch +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils/mips_backend.diff renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils-0.148/mips_backend.diff +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils/redhat-portability.diff renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils-0.148/redhat-portability.diff +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils/redhat-robustify.diff renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils-0.148/redhat-robustify.diff +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils/remove-unused.patch renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils-0.148/remove-unused.patch +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils/testsuite-ignore-elflint.diff renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils-0.148/testsuite-ignore-elflint.diff +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils/uclibc-support.patch renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils-0.148/uclibc-support.patch +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils/x86_64_dis.h renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils-0.148/x86_64_dis.h +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/elfutils/elfutils_0.148.bb +2 -1
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=0636e73ff0215e8d672dc4c32c317bb3\ file://EXCEPTION;md5=570adcb0c1218ab57f2249c67d0ce417" DEPENDS = "libtool bzip2 zlib" -PR = "r2" +PR = "r3" SRC_URI = "https://fedorahosted.org/releases/e/l/elfutils/elfutils-${PV}.tar.bz2"
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ SRC_URI += "\ file://elfutils-fsize.patch \ file://remove-unused.patch \ file://mempcpy.patch \ + file://fix_for_gcc-4.7.patch\ " # Only apply when building uclibc based target recipe SRC_URI_append_libc-uclibc = " ${@['', 'file://uclibc-support.patch']['${PN}' == '${BPN}']}"
Signature · 1 line
1.7.4.4
Re: [PATCH 1/7] binutils: upgrade from 2.21 to 2.21.1
In reply to [email protected]Quoted 31 lines · On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:25 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>---
...n_2.21.bb => binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} | 0 ...tils-cross_2.21.bb => binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} | 0 ...rosssdk_2.21.bb => binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} | 0.../110-arm-eabi-conf.patch | 0
.../binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch| 0.../binutils-poison.patch| 0.../binutils-pr12366.patch| 0.../binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch| 0...binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch | 0 ...binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch | 0 ...ils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch | 0.../binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch | 0
.../binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch| 0.../libiberty_path_fix.patch| 0.../libtool-2.4-update.patch| 1725 ++++++++++----------.../libtool-rpath-fix.patch| 0 .../{binutils_2.21.bb => binutils_2.21.1.bb} | 7 +-17 files changed, 871 insertions(+), 861 deletions(-)rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.bb => binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross_2.21.bb => binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-crosssdk_2.21.bb => binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>
binutils}/110-arm-eabi-conf.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-poison.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-pr12366.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch(100%)
Quoted 9 lines
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>
binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/libiberty_path_fix.patch(100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/libtool-2.4-update.patch(94%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/libtool-rpath-fix.patch(100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils_2.21.bb => binutils_2.21.1.bb} (87%)
How about changing the recipe to fetch from binutils-2_21-branch and call it binutils 2.21 as it is
Re: [PATCH 1/7] binutils: upgrade from 2.21 to 2.21.1
Quoted 42 lines · Khem Raj
Quoted 31 lines · On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:25 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>--- ...n_2.21.bb => binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} | 0 ...tils-cross_2.21.bb => binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} | 0 ...rosssdk_2.21.bb => binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} | 0 .../110-arm-eabi-conf.patch | 0 .../binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch | 0 .../binutils-poison.patch | 0 .../binutils-pr12366.patch | 0 .../binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch | 0 ...binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch | 0 ...binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch | 0 ...ils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch | 0 .../binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch | 0 .../binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch | 0 .../libiberty_path_fix.patch | 0 .../libtool-2.4-update.patch | 1725 ++++++++++---------- .../libtool-rpath-fix.patch | 0 .../{binutils_2.21.bb => binutils_2.21.1.bb} | 7 +- 17 files changed, 871 insertions(+), 861 deletions(-) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.bb => binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross_2.21.bb => binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-crosssdk_2.21.bb => binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/110-arm-eabi-conf.patch (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-poison.patch (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-pr12366.patch (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch (100%)Quoted 9 lines
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/libiberty_path_fix.patch (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/libtool-2.4-update.patch (94%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/libtool-rpath-fix.patch (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils_2.21.bb => binutils_2.21.1.bb} (87%)
Quoted 2 lines
How about changing the recipe to fetch from binutils-2_21-branch and call it binutils 2.21 as it is
I don't really see the benefits in fetching this from the SCM?
Cheers,
Richard
Re: [PATCH 1/7] binutils: upgrade from 2.21 to 2.21.1
Quoted 43 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 42 lines · Khem Raj
Quoted 40 lines · On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:25 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>---
...n_2.21.bb => binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} | 0 ...tils-cross_2.21.bb => binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} | 0 ...rosssdk_2.21.bb => binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} | 0 .../110-arm-eabi-conf.patch | 0 .../binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch | 0 .../binutils-poison.patch | 0 .../binutils-pr12366.patch | 0 .../binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch | 0 ...binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch | 0 ...binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch | 0 ...ils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch | 0 .../binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch | 0 .../binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch | 0 .../libiberty_path_fix.patch | 0 .../libtool-2.4-update.patch | 1725 ++++++++++---------- .../libtool-rpath-fix.patch | 0 .../{binutils_2.21.bb => binutils_2.21.1.bb} | 7 +- 17 files changed, 871 insertions(+), 861 deletions(-)rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.bb => binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross_2.21.bb => binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-crosssdk_2.21.bb => binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/110-arm-eabi-conf.patch(100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-poison.patch(100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-pr12366.patch(100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/libiberty_path_fix.patch(100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/libtool-2.4-update.patch(94%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/libtool-rpath-fix.patch(100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils_2.21.bb => binutils_2.21.1.bb} (87%)
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
How about changing the recipe to fetch from binutils-2_21-branch and call it binutils 2.21 as it is
I don't really see the benefits in fetching this from the SCM?
Not much yes however
Releases happen not so frequently but bug fixes go into the branch and it makes it easier to upgrade may be same as adding patches to metadata but we don't need to keep them local in metadata
It will match the process we do for other toolchain components
Quoted 10 lines
Cheers,
Richard
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [PATCH 1/7] binutils: upgrade from 2.21 to 2.21.1
Quoted 51 lines · Khem Raj
Quoted 43 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 42 lines · Khem Raj
Quoted 40 lines · On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:25 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>---
...n_2.21.bb => binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} | 0 ...tils-cross_2.21.bb => binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} | 0 ...rosssdk_2.21.bb => binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} | 0 .../110-arm-eabi-conf.patch | 0 .../binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch | 0 .../binutils-poison.patch | 0 .../binutils-pr12366.patch | 0 .../binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch | 0 ...binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch | 0 ...binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch | 0 ...ils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch | 0 .../binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch | 0 .../binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch | 0 .../libiberty_path_fix.patch | 0 .../libtool-2.4-update.patch | 1725 ++++++++++---------- .../libtool-rpath-fix.patch | 0 .../{binutils_2.21.bb => binutils_2.21.1.bb} | 7 +- 17 files changed, 871 insertions(+), 861 deletions(-)rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.bb => binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross_2.21.bb => binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-crosssdk_2.21.bb => binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} (100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/110-arm-eabi-conf.patch(100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-poison.patch(100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-pr12366.patch(100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch(100%) rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/libiberty_path_fix.patch(100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/libtool-2.4-update.patch(94%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 =>binutils}/libtool-rpath-fix.patch(100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils_2.21.bb => binutils_2.21.1.bb} (87%)Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
How about changing the recipe to fetch from binutils-2_21-branch and call it binutils 2.21 as it is
I don't really see the benefits in fetching this from the SCM?
Quoted 7 lines
Not much yes however
Releases happen not so frequently but bug fixes go into the branch and it makes it easier to upgrade may be same as adding patches to metadata but we don't need to keep them local in metadata
It will match the process we do for other toolchain components
I have a dislike for depending on what are usually slow SCMs for components of the system. I've been convinced we need to do it for gcc but I think that is the exception to the rule and we don't have a seriously large number of patches queued against binutils...
I've therefore taken the patch.
Cheers,
Richard
Re: [PATCH 1/7] binutils: upgrade from 2.21 to 2.21.1
In reply to Richard PurdieQuoted 5 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 2 lines · Khem Raj
How about changing the recipe to fetch from binutils-2_21-branch and call it binutils 2.21 as it is
I don't really see the benefits in fetching this from the SCM?
Agreed, seems like fetching it from CVS will just make it slower and not really buy us anything. I think sticking with the tarballs is the right answer here.
p.
Richard Purdie
AppliedQuoted 10 lines · On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 13:25 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
From: Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]>
The following changes since commit
2c79c9eb7ef8ef0aef8c3096c3c4387e28e56ea2:pulseaudio: add 0.9.23 (2011-07-07 13:45:32 +0100)
are available in the git repository at:
git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contribnitin/misc
http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=nitin/misc
Quoted 6 lines
Nitin A Kamble (7):
binutils: upgrade from 2.21 to 2.21.1
gmp: upgrade from 5.0.1 to 5.0.2
distro tracking: update devel.toolchain recipes's fields
gcc-runtime: fix installed but unpackaged files
elfutils: fix compilations issue with the gcc 4.7
I merged the above, thanks.
Quoted 2 lines
eglibc: fix installed but not packaged files
binutils: package unpackaged files
and for these I've followed up with replies against the patches.
Cheers,
Richard