htop: new package
PATCH 1/1 htop: new package
The following adds support for version 0.8.3 of htop. 0.9 is the latest, however, is dependant on backtrace. The next version is to remove the hard dependencies of backtrace and make it a compile-time check.
---
package/htop/Config.in 2011-01-11 15:16:01.000000000 -0600 renamed from package/htop/Config.in 1969-12-31 18:00:00.000000000 -0600 +9 -0
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +config BR2_PACKAGE_HTOP + bool "htop" + select BR2_PACKAGE_NCURSES + select UCLIBC_HAS_BACKTRACE if BR2_TOOLCHAIN_BUILDROOT + help + htop is an interactive text-mode process viewer for Linux. + It aims to be a better top. + + http://sourceforge.net/projects/htop/
diff -Naur a/package/htop/htop-cross-no-proc-check.patch b/package/htop/htop-cross-no-proc-check.patch
--- a/package/htop/htop-cross-no-proc-check.patch 1969-12-31
18:00:00.000000000 -0600
+++ b/package/htop/htop-cross-no-proc-check.patch 2011-01-12
14:51:53.000000000 -0600
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+--- a/configure 2009-06-23 08:53:37.000000000 -0500 ++++ b/configure 2011-01-12 14:21:49.000000000 -0600
+@@ -21809,6 +21809,7 @@
+
+ fi
+
++if test "$cross_compiling" = no ; then
+ as_ac_File=echo "ac_cv_file_$PROCDIR/stat" | $as_tr_sh
+ { echo "$as_me:$LINENO: checking for $PROCDIR/stat" >&5
+ echo $ECHO_N "checking for $PROCDIR/stat... $ECHO_C" >&6; } +@@ -21862,6 +21863,7 @@
+ echo "$as_me: error: Cannot find /proc/meminfo. Make sure you have a Linux-compatible /proc filesystem mounted. See the file README for help." >&2;}
+ { (exit 1); exit 1; }; }
+ fi
++fi #cross_compiling = no (Andy Kennedy)
+
+
+
package/htop/htop.mk 2011-01-12 13:36:36.000000000 -0600 renamed from package/htop/htop.mk 1969-12-31 18:00:00.000000000 -0600 +9 -0
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +############################################################# +# +# htop +# +############################################################# +# Version 0.9 requires backtrace, which doesn't exsist in uClibC, yet. +HTOP_VERSION = 0.8.3 +HTOP_SOURCE = htop-$(HTOP_VERSION).tar.gz +HTOP_SITE =
http://$(BR2_SOURCEFORGE_MIRROR).dl.sourceforge.net/htop/$(HTOP_VERSION)
+HTOP_DEPENDENCIES = ncurses
+
+$(eval $(call AUTOTARGETS,package,htop))
PATCH 1/1 htop: new package
Hello Andy,
Quoted 4 lines · On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:15:30 -0600 ANDY KENNEDY <[email protected]> wrote:
The following adds support for version 0.8.3 of htop. 0.9 is the latest, however, is dependant on backtrace. The next version is to remove the hard dependencies of backtrace and make it a compile-time check.
Your patch is word-wrapped. Could you check your e-mail client configuration ? You should probably try git send-email, as this will guarantee that your patches will make it properly to the list, without being word-wrapped or damaged in anyway by the mail client you're using.
package/htop/Config.in 2011-01-11 15:16:01.000000000 -0600 line 4
Quoted 10 lines
Signed-off-by Andy Kennedy <[email protected]>---
diff -Naur a/package/htop/Config.in b/package/htop/Config.inpackage/htop/Config.in 2011-01-11 15:16:01.000000000 -0600 renamed from package/htop/Config.in 1969-12-31 18:00:00.000000000 -0600 +4
-0@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +config BR2_PACKAGE_HTOP + bool "htop" + select BR2_PACKAGE_NCURSES + select UCLIBC_HAS_BACKTRACE if BR2_TOOLCHAIN_BUILDROOT
We can't do that. UCLIBC_HAS_BACKTRACE does not exist in the current version of Buildroot. Probably a left over from the packaging of htop 0.9, which requires backtrace support.
However, even when you'll package htop 0.9, the current policy is not to do something like selecting a given UCLIBC option. We either :
*) Enable the needed option in our default uClibc build, if the
footprint impact is reasonable and the option is sufficiently useful for different packages.
*) Or add a comment in the package help in Config.in stating that the
package would not build with the default uClibc configuration.
None of those options are perfect, but we'd like to avoid adding dozens and dozens of options at the Buildroot level to tweak every possible option of uClibc.
Quoted 6 lines
diff -Naur
a/package/htop/htop-cross-no-proc-check.patchb/package/htop/htop-cross-no-proc-check.patch
---a/package/htop/htop-cross-no-proc-check.patch1969-12-31
18:00:00.000000000 -0600
+++b/package/htop/htop-cross-no-proc-check.patch2011-01-12
14:51:53.000000000 -0600
Patch lacks a description of why it is needed and the Signed-off-by line.
Regards,
Thomas
Signature · 4 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com
PATCH 1/1 htop: new package
Quoted 5 lines
Your patch is word-wrapped. Could you check your e-mail client configuration ? You should probably try git send-email, as this will guarantee that your patches will make it properly to the list, without being word-wrapped or damaged in anyway by the mail client you're using.
GGGGRRRRR!!! I'm using Outlook and I'm behind an Exchange server. To that end, will git sendmail work?
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
+ select
UCLIBC_HAS_BACKTRACEifBR2_TOOLCHAIN_BUILDROOTWe can't do that.
UCLIBC_HAS_BACKTRACEdoes not exist in the current version of Buildroot. Probably a left over from the packaging of htop 0.9, which requires backtrace support.
Leftover from 0.9 -- that's why I went backwards to 0.8.3
Quoted 9 lines
However, even when you'll package htop 0.9, the current policy is not to do something like selecting a given UCLIBC option. We either :
*) Enable the needed option in our default uClibc build, if the
footprint impact is reasonable and the option is sufficiently
useful
for different packages.
Quoted 4 lines
*) Or add a comment in the package help in Config.in stating that the
package would not build with the default uClibc configuration.None of those options are perfect, but we'd like to avoid adding
dozens
Quoted 2 lines
and dozens of options at the Buildroot level to tweak every possible option of uClibc.
Nah, no reason to. The HTOP guys say that their next release will auto detect the presence of backtrace and use it if it is there, so we'll skip right on past 0.9 when they get it fixed.
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 7 lines
diff -Naur
a/package/htop/htop-cross-no-proc-check.patchb/package/htop/htop-cross-no-proc-check.patch
---a/package/htop/htop-cross-no-proc-check.patch1969-12-31
18:00:00.000000000 -0600
+++b/package/htop/htop-cross-no-proc-check.patch2011-01-12
14:51:53.000000000 -0600Patch lacks a description of why it is needed and the Signed-off-by line.
Hmm, so naming the file htop-cross-no-proc-check is not sufficient for the comment? Will fix and resubmit.
Quoted 13 lines
Regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot at busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
PATCH 1/1 htop: new package
Quoted 8 lines · On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 10:14:33 -0600 ANDY KENNEDY <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 5 lines
Your patch is word-wrapped. Could you check your e-mail client configuration ? You should probably try git send-email, as this will guarantee that your patches will make it properly to the list, without being word-wrapped or damaged in anyway by the mail client you're using.
GGGGRRRRR!!! I'm using Outlook and I'm behind an Exchange server. To that end, will git sendmail work?
No. Tell your network administrator that not having a real SMTP server prevents you from working efficiently. There's nothing useful you can do without a real SMTP server.
Of course, if you can SSH out to another box that has a SMTP server available, that would work.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
None of those options are perfect, but we'd like to avoid adding
dozens
Quoted 2 lines
and dozens of options at the Buildroot level to tweak every possible option of uClibc.
Nah, no reason to. The HTOP guys say that their next release will auto detect the presence of backtrace and use it if it is there, so we'll skip right on past 0.9 when they get it fixed.
Great.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Patch lacks a description of why it is needed and the Signed-off-by line.
Hmm, so naming the file htop-cross-no-proc-check is not sufficient for the comment? Will fix and resubmit.
In that case, I admit it's a bit silly, but that's the rule :-)
Thomas
Signature · 4 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com