Move download links away from Google Code
cover Move download links away from Google Code
With Google Code going away early next year. Remove download links from Google Code and find the new official repos for those projects.
These patches came from Buildroot Dev Days in Dublin. There will be more to come to clean up the other projects using Google Code.
Alan Ott (5):
dsp-tools: Move download link away from Google Code
gst-dsp: Move download link away from Google Code
gst-omapfb: Move download link away from Google Code
gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD
gmock: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD
package/dsp-tools/dsp-tools.mk | 4 ++-- package/gmock/0001-force-use-python2.patch | 8 ++++---- package/gmock/gmock.hash | 4 ++-- package/gmock/gmock.mk | 31 ++++++++++-------------------- package/gstreamer/gst-dsp/gst-dsp.mk | 4 ++-- package/gstreamer/gst-omapfb/gst-omapfb.mk | 4 ++-- package/gtest/gtest.hash | 4 ++-- package/gtest/gtest.mk | 19 ++++++++---------- 8 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
Signature · 1 line
2.1.4
PATCH 1/5 dsp-tools: Move download link away from Google Code
Google Code is being shut down. The google code site which hosts the source .tar.gz references github/felipec, which has a dsp-tools repository with the same code as the tar.gz previously referenced.
Change the DSP_TOOLS_SITE to this github repo.
--- package/dsp-tools/dsp-tools.mk | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
package/dsp-tools/dsp-tools.mk +2 -2
@@ -4,8 +4,8 @@ # ################################################################################ -DSP_TOOLS_VERSION = 2.0 -DSP_TOOLS_SITE = http://gst-dsp.googlecode.com/files +DSP_TOOLS_VERSION = v2.0 +DSP_TOOLS_SITE = $(call github,felipec,dsp-tools,$(DSP_TOOLS_VERSION)) DSP_TOOLS_DEPENDENCIES = tidsp-binaries DSP_TOOLS_LICENSE = LGPLv2.1 DSP_TOOLS_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE
Signature · 1 line
2.1.4
PATCH 2/5 gst-dsp: Move download link away from Google Code
In reply to Alan OttGoogle Code is being shut down. The google code site which hosts the source .tar.gz references github/felipec, which has a gst-dsp repository with the same code as the tar.gz previously referenced.
Change the GST_DSP_SITE to this github repo.
--- package/gstreamer/gst-dsp/gst-dsp.mk | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
package/gstreamer/gst-dsp/gst-dsp.mk +2 -2
@@ -4,8 +4,8 @@ # ################################################################################ -GST_DSP_VERSION = 0.10.2 -GST_DSP_SITE = http://gst-dsp.googlecode.com/files +GST_DSP_VERSION = v0.10.2 +GST_DSP_SITE = $(call github,felipec,gst-dsp,$(GST_DSP_VERSION)) define GST_DSP_BUILD_CMDS $(TARGET_CONFIGURE_OPTS) $(MAKE) -C $(@D) -e
Signature · 1 line
2.1.4
PATCH 3/5 gst-omapfb: Move download link away from Google Code
In reply to Alan OttGoogle Code is being shut down. The google code site which hosts the source .tar.gz references github/felipec, which has a gst-omapfb repository with the same code as the tar.gz previously referenced.
Change the GST_OMAPFB_SITE to this github repo.
--- package/gstreamer/gst-omapfb/gst-omapfb.mk | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
package/gstreamer/gst-omapfb/gst-omapfb.mk +2 -2
@@ -4,8 +4,8 @@ # ################################################################################ -GST_OMAPFB_VERSION = 1.0 -GST_OMAPFB_SITE = http://gst-dsp.googlecode.com/files +GST_OMAPFB_VERSION = v1.0 +GST_OMAPFB_SITE = $(call github,felipec,gst-omapfb,$(GST_OMAPFB_VERSION)) define GST_OMAPFB_BUILD_CMDS $(TARGET_CONFIGURE_OPTS) $(MAKE) -C $(@D) -e
Signature · 1 line
2.1.4
PATCH 4/5 gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD
In reply to Alan OttGoogle Code is being shut down. The google code site which hosts the source .zip for gtest references github.com/google/googletest, but that repo does not have the same code underneath the versioned tags as the google code repo. For this reason It was decided by Peter Korsgaard and I to upgrade to the current HEAD. The current HEAD is laid out differently (with gtest and gmock combined into the same repo).
Change the GTEST_SITE to this new github repo, fix the version, fix the paths, and remove the custom extraction commands.
--- package/gtest/gtest.hash | 4 ++-- package/gtest/gtest.mk | 19 ++++++++----------- 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
package/gtest/gtest.hash +2 -2
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ -# From http://code.google.com/p/googletest/downloads/detail?name=gtest-1.7.0.zip&can=2&q= -sha1 f85f6d2481e2c6c4a18539e391aa4ea8ab0394af gtest-1.7.0.zip +# Locally computed: +sha256 58d1b6118176b527301c03010b7cb709b7c4b729078a55e4bb3341dfb40f5834 gtest-7f4448f40b3f3f16a75787c016139511579367ed.tar.gz
package/gtest/gtest.mk +8 -11
@@ -5,13 +5,14 @@ ################################################################################ # Make sure this remains the same version as the gmock one -GTEST_VERSION = 1.7.0 -GTEST_SOURCE = gtest-$(GTEST_VERSION).zip -GTEST_SITE = http://googletest.googlecode.com/files +GTEST_VERSION = 7f4448f40b3f3f16a75787c016139511579367ed +# The above revision must remain the same as the gmock package +GTEST_SITE = $(call github,google,googletest,$(GTEST_VERSION)) GTEST_INSTALL_STAGING = YES GTEST_INSTALL_TARGET = NO GTEST_LICENSE = BSD-3c GTEST_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE +GTEST_SUBDIR = googletest # While it is possible to build gtest as shared library, using this gtest shared # library requires to set some special configure option in the project using
@@ -22,15 +23,11 @@ GTEST_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE # the gtest sources. GTEST_CONF_OPTS = -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=OFF -define GTEST_EXTRACT_CMDS - $(UNZIP) $(DL_DIR)/$(GTEST_SOURCE) -d $(BUILD_DIR) -endef - define GTEST_INSTALL_STAGING_CMDS - $(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/libgtest.a $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib/libgtest.a - $(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/libgtest_main.a $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib/libgtest_main.a + $(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/$(GTEST_SUBDIR)/libgtest.a $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib/libgtest.a + $(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/$(GTEST_SUBDIR)/libgtest_main.a $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib/libgtest_main.a $(INSTALL) -d -m 0755 $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include/gtest/ - cp -rp $(@D)/include/gtest/* $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include/gtest/ + cp -rp $(@D)/$(GTEST_SUBDIR)/include/gtest/* $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include/gtest/ # Generate the gtest-config script manually, since the CMake # build system is not doing it. sed 's%@PACKAGE_TARNAME@%gtest%;\
@@ -42,7 +39,7 @@ define GTEST_INSTALL_STAGING_CMDS s%@bindir@%$(STAGING_DIR)/usr/bin%;\ s%@PTHREAD_CFLAGS@%%;\ s%@PTHREAD_LIBS@%-lpthread%;' \ - $(@D)/scripts/gtest-config.in \ + $(@D)/$(GTEST_SUBDIR)/scripts/gtest-config.in \ > $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/bin/gtest-config chmod +x $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/bin/gtest-config endef
Signature · 1 line
2.1.4
PATCH 4/5 gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD
Alan,
package/gtest/gtest.mk line 15
Quoted 7 lines · Alan Ott
package/gtest/gtest.mk +3
-0+# The above revision must remain the same as the gmock package +GTEST_SITE = $(call github,google,googletest,$(GTEST_VERSION)) GTEST_INSTALL_STAGING = YES GTEST_INSTALL_TARGET = NO GTEST_LICENSE = BSD-3c GTEST_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE +GTEST_SUBDIR = googletest
So gtest and gmock are in fact now part of the same repository/upstream project ? If that's the case, then I think we should simply get rid of the gtest and gmock packages, and have a single package named "googletest".
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
PATCH 4/5 gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD
Quoted 13 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
package/gtest/gtest.mk line 15
Quoted 7 lines · Alan Ott
package/gtest/gtest.mk +3
-0+# The above revision must remain the same as the gmock package +GTEST_SITE = $(call github,google,googletest,$(GTEST_VERSION)) GTEST_INSTALL_STAGING = YES GTEST_INSTALL_TARGET = NO GTEST_LICENSE = BSD-3c GTEST_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE +GTEST_SUBDIR = googletestSo gtest and gmock are in fact now part of the same repository/upstream project ? If that's the case, then I think we should simply get rid of the gtest and gmock packages, and have a single package named "googletest".
Yes, that would probably be better. gmock depends on gtest, and gtest can be standalone. Maybe we have one package with a submenu option to build each target (and a dependency so gmock selects gtest).
Is that ok by you?
Alan.
PATCH 4/5 gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD
Dear Alan Ott,
Quoted 10 lines · Alan Ott
Quoted 4 lines
So gtest and gmock are in fact now part of the same repository/upstream project ? If that's the case, then I think we should simply get rid of the gtest and gmock packages, and have a single package named "googletest".
Yes, that would probably be better. gmock depends on gtest, and gtest can be standalone. Maybe we have one package with a submenu option to build each target (and a dependency so gmock selects gtest).
Is that ok by you?
Yes, that's OK.
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
PATCH 4/5 gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD
In reply to Alan OttHello, Thomas and Alan,
Quoted 6 lines
From: "Alan Ott" <[email protected]>
To: "Thomas Petazzoni" <[email protected]>
Cc: buildroot at buildroot.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 7:00:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD
Quoted 14 lines
Quoted 13 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
package/gtest/gtest.mk line 15
Quoted 7 lines · Alan Ott
package/gtest/gtest.mk +3
-0+# The above revision must remain the same as the gmock package +GTEST_SITE = $(call github,google,googletest,$(GTEST_VERSION)) GTEST_INSTALL_STAGING = YES GTEST_INSTALL_TARGET = NO GTEST_LICENSE = BSD-3c GTEST_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE +GTEST_SUBDIR = googletestSo gtest and gmock are in fact now part of the same repository/upstream project ? If that's the case, then I think we should simply get rid of the gtest and gmock packages, and have a single package named "googletest".
What about applying the submitted patches now, to fix the repository, and a different patch later to create the "googletest" package?
Quoted 7 lines
Yes, that would probably be better. gmock depends on gtest, and gtest can be standalone. Maybe we have one package with a submenu option to build each target (and a dependency so gmock selects gtest).
Is that ok by you?
Alan.
Do you need any help to do this?
Carlos Santos (Casantos)
DATACOM, P&D
PATCH 4/5 gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD
Quoted 36 lines
From: "Carlos Santos" <[email protected]>
To: "Alan Ott" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Thomas Petazzoni" <[email protected]>, buildroot at buildroot.org
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 5:29:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEADHello, Thomas and Alan,
Quoted 6 lines
From: "Alan Ott" <[email protected]>
To: "Thomas Petazzoni" <[email protected]>
Cc: buildroot at buildroot.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 7:00:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEADQuoted 14 lines
Quoted 13 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
package/gtest/gtest.mk line 15
Quoted 7 lines · Alan Ott
package/gtest/gtest.mk +3
-0+# The above revision must remain the same as the gmock package +GTEST_SITE = $(call github,google,googletest,$(GTEST_VERSION)) GTEST_INSTALL_STAGING = YES GTEST_INSTALL_TARGET = NO GTEST_LICENSE = BSD-3c GTEST_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE +GTEST_SUBDIR = googletestSo gtest and gmock are in fact now part of the same repository/upstream project ? If that's the case, then I think we should simply get rid of the gtest and gmock packages, and have a single package named "googletest".
What about applying the submitted patches now, to fix the repository, and a different patch later to create the "googletest" package?
Quoted 4 lines
Yes, that would probably be better. gmock depends on gtest, and gtest can be standalone. Maybe we have one package with a submenu option to build each target (and a dependency so gmock selects gtest).
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Is that ok by you?
Alan.
Do you need any help to do this?
Hello Alan,
I noticed that this patch set is still in "Changes Requested" state. Is there anything I can do to help?
Carlos Santos (Casantos)
DATACOM, P&D
PATCH 4/5 gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD
Hello,
Quoted 3 lines · Carlos Santos
Hello Alan,
I noticed that this patch set is still in "Changes Requested" state. Is there anything I can do to help?
You can take over the patch, make the necessary changes and post an updated version of it.
If your changes are limited, it is customary to keep the original author as the author of the patch.
If your changes are really major and essentially rewrite the whole patch, then you can re-assign the authorship of the patch to you, but keep a reference to the original author in the commit log.
It is definitely more than welcome to pick up old patches for which changes were requested, but whose author didn't had the time to implement.
Best regards,
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
PATCH 4/5 gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD
Quoted 15 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
Hello,
Quoted 3 lines · Carlos Santos
Hello Alan,
I noticed that this patch set is still in "Changes Requested" state.
Is there anything I can do to help?
You can take over the patch, make the necessary changes and post an updated version of it.
If your changes are limited, it is customary to keep the original author as the author of the patch.
Quoted 8 lines
If your changes are really major and essentially rewrite the whole patch, then you can re-assign the authorship of the patch to you, but keep a reference to the original author in the commit log.
It is definitely more than welcome to pick up old patches for which changes were requested, but whose author didn't had the time to implement.
Hi Carlos, I agree. I ran out of time on this, unfortunately :( .Have a look at the original comments from Thomas here:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530390/
As far as a authorship, the changes requested are significant enough that you can take my authorship off. I don't mind.
Alan.
PATCH 4/5 gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD
Quoted 32 lines
From: "Alan Ott" <[email protected]>
To: "Thomas Petazzoni" <[email protected]>, "Carlos Santos" <[email protected]>
Cc: buildroot at buildroot.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 10:13:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEADQuoted 15 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
Hello,
Quoted 3 lines · Carlos Santos
Hello Alan,
I noticed that this patch set is still in "Changes Requested" state.
Is there anything I can do to help?
You can take over the patch, make the necessary changes and post an updated version of it.
If your changes are limited, it is customary to keep the original author as the author of the patch.
Quoted 8 lines
If your changes are really major and essentially rewrite the whole patch, then you can re-assign the authorship of the patch to you, but keep a reference to the original author in the commit log.
It is definitely more than welcome to pick up old patches for which changes were requested, but whose author didn't had the time to implement.
Quoted 8 lines
Hi Carlos, I agree. I ran out of time on this, unfortunately :( .Have a look at the original comments from Thomas here:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530390/As far as a authorship, the changes requested are significant enough that you can take my authorship off. I don't mind.
Alan.
Alan/Thomas,
I propose doing this in three steps:
1. Submit a patchset that replaces the sites from googlecode.com to github, maintaining the same package versions (including gtest and gmock, that would be left at version 1.7.0).
This change is easy to apply and could even be brought to the impending Buildroot 2016.02, IMO, since it does not change the package versions, only reduces the risk of build failures due to problems in googlecode.com (I consider this a bug fix). The patchset would update the following patches:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530387/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530388/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530389/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530390/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530391/
2. Submit a patchset that replaces packages gtest and gmock by a "googletest" package, as suggested by Thomas. This change is quite disruptive for us at DATACOM because it may require changing the recipes that we maintain in $(BR2_EXTERNAL), so I humbly ask you to postpone the change.
3. Submit a patchset that upgrades googletest to a newer release, hopefully v1.8.0, or to the current HEAD, as decided by Peter Korsgaard and Alan. I will do this after ensuring that the change does not break anything.
Do you agree?
Carlos Santos (Casantos)
DATACOM, P&D
PATCH 4/5 gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD
Hello,
Quoted 11 lines · Carlos Santos
1. Submit a patchset that replaces the sites from googlecode.com to github, maintaining the same package versions (including gtest and gmock, that would be left at version 1.7.0).
This change is easy to apply and could even be brought to the impending Buildroot 2016.02, IMO, since it does not change the package versions, only reduces the risk of build failures due to problems in googlecode.com (I consider this a bug fix). The patchset would update the following patches:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530387/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530388/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530389/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530390/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530391/
Quoted 3 lines
2. Submit a patchset that replaces packages gtest and gmock by a "googletest" package, as suggested by Thomas. This change is quite disruptive for us at DATACOM because it may require changing the recipes that we maintain in $(BR2_EXTERNAL), so I humbly ask you to postpone the change.
3. Submit a patchset that upgrades googletest to a newer release, hopefully v1.8.0, or to the current HEAD, as decided by Peter Korsgaard and Alan. I will do this after ensuring that the change does not break anything.
Sounds good. Note that (1), (2) and (3) could also be part of the same patch series if you wish. But it's fine to have (1) first, wait to get it merge, and only then continue with (2) and (3).
Best regards,
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
PATCH 4/5 gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD
Quoted 31 lines
From: "Thomas Petazzoni" <[email protected]>
To: "Carlos Santos" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Alan Ott" <[email protected]>, buildroot at buildroot.org
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 2:18:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] gtest: Upgrade to GitHub HEADHello,
Quoted 21 lines · Carlos Santos
1. Submit a patchset that replaces the sites from googlecode.com to github, maintaining the same package versions (including gtest and gmock, that would be left at version 1.7.0).
This change is easy to apply and could even be brought to the impending Buildroot 2016.02, IMO, since it does not change the package versions, only reduces the risk of build failures due to problems in googlecode.com (I consider this a bug fix). The patchset would update the following patches:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530387/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530388/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530389/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530390/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/530391/2. Submit a patchset that replaces packages gtest and gmock by a "googletest" package, as suggested by Thomas. This change is quite disruptive for us at DATACOM because it may require changing the recipes that we maintain in $(BR2_EXTERNAL), so I humbly ask you to postpone the change.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
3. Submit a patchset that upgrades googletest to a newer release, hopefully v1.8.0, or to the current HEAD, as decided by Peter Korsgaard and Alan. I will do this after ensuring that the change does not break anything.
Sounds good. Note that (1), (2) and (3) could also be part of the same patch series if you wish. But it's fine to have (1) first, wait to get it merge, and only then continue with (2) and (3).
Thomas,
Considering that my work will focus on GTest/GMock I thing that patches 530387 through 530389 can be applied, leaving 530390 and 530391 in "Changes Requested" state. Do you agree?
Carlos Santos (Casantos)
DATACOM, P&D
PATCH 5/5 gmock: Upgrade to GitHub HEAD
In reply to Alan OttGoogle Code is being shut down. The google code site which hosts the source .zip for gmock references github.com/google/googletest, but that repo does not have the same code underneath the versioned tags as the google code repo. For this reason It was decided by Peter Korsgaard and I to upgrade to the current HEAD. The current HEAD is laid out differently (with gtest and gmock combined into the same repo).
Change the GMOCK_SITE to this new github repo, fix the version, fix the paths, and remove the custom extraction commands.
--- package/gmock/0001-force-use-python2.patch | 8 ++++---- package/gmock/gmock.hash | 4 ++-- package/gmock/gmock.mk | 31 ++++++++++-------------------- 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
package/gmock/0001-force-use-python2.patch +4 -4
@@ -2,16 +2,16 @@ Force use of Python 2 even when Python 3 is the default Python interpreter. Signed-off-by: Carlos Santos <[email protected]> ---- ./gtest/scripts/fuse_gtest_files.py.orig 2013-09-18 14:48:30.000000000 -0300 -+++ ./gtest/scripts/fuse_gtest_files.py 2015-07-22 15:42:53.291591205 -0300 +--- ./googletest/scripts/fuse_gtest_files.py.orig 2013-09-18 14:48:30.000000000 -0300 ++++ ./googletest/scripts/fuse_gtest_files.py 2015-07-22 15:42:53.291591205 -0300 @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -#!/usr/bin/env python +#!/usr/bin/env python2 # # Copyright 2009, Google Inc. # All rights reserved. ---- ./scripts/generator/gmock_gen.py.orig 2013-09-18 14:50:15.000000000 -0300 -+++ ./scripts/generator/gmock_gen.py 2015-07-22 17:06:51.071815634 -0300 +--- ./googlemock/scripts/generator/gmock_gen.py.orig 2013-09-18 14:50:15.000000000 -0300 ++++ ./googlemock/scripts/generator/gmock_gen.py 2015-07-22 17:06:51.071815634 -0300 @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -#!/usr/bin/env python +#!/usr/bin/env python2
package/gmock/gmock.hash +2 -2
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ -# Locally computed -sha256 26fcbb5925b74ad5fc8c26b0495dfc96353f4d553492eb97e85a8a6d2f43095b gmock-1.7.0.zip +# Locally computed: +sha256 58d1b6118176b527301c03010b7cb709b7c4b729078a55e4bb3341dfb40f5834 gmock-7f4448f40b3f3f16a75787c016139511579367ed.tar.gz
package/gmock/gmock.mk +10 -21
@@ -5,14 +5,16 @@ ################################################################################ # Make sure this remains the same version as the gtest one -GMOCK_VERSION = 1.7.0 -GMOCK_SOURCE = gmock-$(GMOCK_VERSION).zip -GMOCK_SITE = http://googlemock.googlecode.com/files +GMOCK_VERSION = 7f4448f40b3f3f16a75787c016139511579367ed +# The above revision must remain the same as the gtest package +GMOCK_SITE = $(call github,google,googletest,$(GMOCK_VERSION)) GMOCK_INSTALL_STAGING = YES GMOCK_INSTALL_TARGET = NO GMOCK_LICENSE = BSD-3c GMOCK_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE GMOCK_DEPENDENCIES = gtest host-gmock +GMOCK_AUTORECONF = YES +GMOCK_SUBDIR = googlemock # GMock 1.7.0 relies on Python 2.7 syntax which is NOT compatible with Python3. HOST_GMOCK_DEPENDENCIES = host-python
@@ -26,34 +28,21 @@ HOST_GMOCK_PYTHONPATH=$(HOST_DIR)/usr/lib/python$(PYTHON_VERSION_MAJOR)/site-pac # set up necessary compiler settings". GMOCK_CONF_OPTS = --enable-static --disable-shared -define GMOCK_EXTRACT_CMDS - $(UNZIP) $(DL_DIR)/$(GMOCK_SOURCE) -d $(BUILD_DIR) -endef - # We can't use the default rule for autotools-package staging because it fails # because it tries to rebuild/install gtest stuff and fails after this error: # "'make install' is dangerous and not supported. Instead, see README for # how to integrate Google Test into your build system." define GMOCK_INSTALL_STAGING_CMDS - $(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/lib/.libs/libgmock.a $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib/libgmock.a - $(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/lib/.libs/libgmock_main.a $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib/libgmock_main.a + $(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/$(GMOCK_SUBDIR)/lib/.libs/libgmock.a $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib/libgmock.a + $(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/$(GMOCK_SUBDIR)/lib/.libs/libgmock_main.a $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib/libgmock_main.a $(INSTALL) -d -m 0755 $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include/gmock/ - cp -rp $(@D)/include/gmock/* $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include/gmock/ -endef - -# Unzipping inside $(@D) and moving everything from the created subdirectory is -# required because unzipping directly in $(BUILD_DIR) would cause host-gmock to -# overwrite the gmock subdir instead of unzipping in a host-gmock subdir. -define HOST_GMOCK_EXTRACT_CMDS - $(UNZIP) $(DL_DIR)/$(GMOCK_SOURCE) -d $(@D) - mv $(@D)/gmock-$(GMOCK_VERSION)/* $(@D) - rmdir $(@D)/gmock-$(GMOCK_VERSION) + cp -rp $(@D)/$(GMOCK_SUBDIR)/include/gmock/* $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include/gmock/ endef define HOST_GMOCK_INSTALL_CMDS - $(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/scripts/generator/gmock_gen.py $(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin/gmock_gen.py + $(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/$(GMOCK_SUBDIR)/scripts/generator/gmock_gen.py $(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin/gmock_gen.py ln -sf gmock_gen.py $(HOST_DIR)/usr/bin/gmock_gen - cp -rp $(@D)/scripts/generator/cpp $(HOST_GMOCK_PYTHONPATH) + cp -rp $(@D)/$(GMOCK_SUBDIR)/scripts/generator/cpp $(HOST_GMOCK_PYTHONPATH) endef $(eval $(autotools-package))
Signature · 1 line
2.1.4
cover Move download links away from Google Code
In reply to Alan OttDear Alan Ott,
Quoted 4 lines · Alan Ott
Alan Ott (5):
dsp-tools: Move download link away from Google Code
gst-dsp: Move download link away from Google Code
gst-omapfb: Move download link away from Google Code
These three look good, but can you also add the hash files while you're at it?
Thanks!
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
cover Move download links away from Google Code
Quoted 8 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
Quoted 4 lines · Alan Ott
Alan Ott (5):
dsp-tools: Move download link away from Google Code
gst-dsp: Move download link away from Google Code
gst-omapfb: Move download link away from Google CodeThese three look good, but can you also add the hash files while you're at it?
Yes, will add.
Alan.