btrfs-progs: bump to version 4.7.2
PATCH 1/1 btrfs-progs: bump to version 4.7.2
Drop all of the upstreamed patches (not precisely in the same form) and rebase the only required patch for proper static builds with staging libs required by other packages.
Build-tested for arm-glibc, arm-uclibc, arm-musl and arm-uclibc-static.
---
...install-static-library-and-headers-in-in.patch} | 14 ++-
...01-configure-refactor-backtrace-detection.patch | 132 ---------------------
...onfigure-refactor-always_inline-detection.patch | 42 -------
...compile-fix-undefined-PATH_MAX-under-musl.patch | 67 -----------
package/btrfs-progs/btrfs-progs.hash | 2 +-
package/btrfs-progs/btrfs-progs.mk | 2 +-
6 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 249 deletions(-)
rename package/btrfs-progs/{0004-Makefile.in-install-static-library-and-headers-in-in.patch => 0001-Makefile.in-install-static-library-and-headers-in-in.patch} (76%)
delete mode 100644 package/btrfs-progs/0001-configure-refactor-backtrace-detection.patch
delete mode 100644 package/btrfs-progs/0002-configure-refactor-always_inline-detection.patch
delete mode 100644 package/btrfs-progs/0003-compile-fix-undefined-PATH_MAX-under-musl.patchpackage/btrfs-progs/0001-Makefile.in-install-static-library-and-headers-in-in.patch renamed from package/btrfs-progs/0004-Makefile.in-install-static-library-and-headers-in-in.patch +8 -6
@@ -12,15 +12,17 @@ should be installed by "install-static". Indeed, "make install" cannot be used if the support for shared library is not enabled. Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <[email protected]> +[Gustavo: Rebase for btrfs-progs 4.7.2] +Signed-off-by: Gustavo Zacarias <[email protected]> --- Makefile.in | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Makefile.in b/Makefile.in -index 8450ab3..0d3b490 100644 +index 19697ff..5870a58 100644 --- a/Makefile.in +++ b/Makefile.in -@@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ test: test-fsck test-convert test-misc +@@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ test: test-fsck test-mkfs test-convert test-misc test-fuzz # NOTE: For static compiles, you need to have all the required libs # static equivalent available #
@@ -29,10 +31,10 @@ index 8450ab3..0d3b490 100644 version.h: version.sh version.h.in configure.ac @echo " [SH] $@" -@@ -346,6 +346,10 @@ install-static: $(progs_static) $(INSTALLDIRS) - for p in $(progs_static) ; do \ - $(INSTALL) -D -m755 $$p $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/`basename $$p .static` ; \ +@@ -384,6 +384,10 @@ install-static: $(progs_static) $(INSTALLDIRS) done + # btrfsck is a link to btrfs in the src tree, make it so for installed file as well + $(LN_S) -f btrfs.static $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/btrfsck.static + $(INSTALL) -m755 -d $(DESTDIR)$(libdir) + $(INSTALL) $(libs_static) $(DESTDIR)$(libdir) + $(INSTALL) -m755 -d $(DESTDIR)$(incdir)
@@ -41,5 +43,5 @@ index 8450ab3..0d3b490 100644 $(INSTALLDIRS): @echo "Making install in $(patsubst install-%,%,$@)" -- -2.7.4 +2.7.3
package/btrfs-progs/0001-configure-refactor-backtrace-detection.patch deleted +0 -132
132 lines not on this page · raw message
package/btrfs-progs/0002-configure-refactor-always_inline-detection.patch deleted +0 -42
42 lines not on this page · raw message
package/btrfs-progs/0003-compile-fix-undefined-PATH_MAX-under-musl.patch deleted +0 -67
67 lines not on this page · raw message
package/btrfs-progs/btrfs-progs.hash +1 -1
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ # From https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/kdave/btrfs-progs/sha256sums.asc -sha256 62db60c6a0868afb6302112cea54c756873bc30b826696b167ec03ecd61b2f12 btrfs-progs-v4.1.2.tar.xz +sha256 f49bc9e143ffe60260c5bd70ef3b624576673f8b50f41e309892a425f7fbe60f btrfs-progs-v4.7.2.tar.xz
package/btrfs-progs/btrfs-progs.mk +1 -1
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ # ################################################################################ -BTRFS_PROGS_VERSION = 4.1.2 +BTRFS_PROGS_VERSION = 4.7.2 BTRFS_PROGS_SITE = $(BR2_KERNEL_MIRROR)/linux/kernel/people/kdave/btrfs-progs BTRFS_PROGS_SOURCE = btrfs-progs-v$(BTRFS_PROGS_VERSION).tar.xz BTRFS_PROGS_DEPENDENCIES = host-pkgconf e2fsprogs lzo util-linux zlib
Signature · 1 line
2.7.3
PATCH 1/1 btrfs-progs: bump to version 4.7.2
Hello,
Quoted 6 lines · Gustavo Zacarias
Drop all of the upstreamed patches (not precisely in the same form) and rebase the only required patch for proper static builds with staging libs required by other packages.
Build-tested for arm-glibc, arm-uclibc, arm-musl and arm-uclibc-static.Signed-off-by Gustavo Zacarias <[email protected]>
Quoted 12 lines
---
...install-static-library-and-headers-in-in.patch} | 14 ++-
...01-configure-refactor-backtrace-detection.patch | 132 ---------------------
...onfigure-refactor-always_inline-detection.patch | 42 -------
...compile-fix-undefined-PATH_MAX-under-musl.patch | 67 -----------
package/btrfs-progs/btrfs-progs.hash | 2 +-
package/btrfs-progs/btrfs-progs.mk | 2 +-
6 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 249 deletions(-)
rename package/btrfs-progs/{0004-Makefile.in-install-static-library-and-headers-in-in.patch => 0001-Makefile.in-install-static-library-and-headers-in-in.patch} (76%)
delete mode 100644 package/btrfs-progs/0001-configure-refactor-backtrace-detection.patch
delete mode 100644 package/btrfs-progs/0002-configure-refactor-always_inline-detection.patch
delete mode 100644 package/btrfs-progs/0003-compile-fix-undefined-PATH_MAX-under-musl.patchApplied to master, thanks. I was surprised you did not remove AUTORECONF = YES since we were patching configure.ac. But in fact, AUTORECONF = YES was not passed. Not sure how btrfs-progs was building... most likely one of its dependency has AUTORECONF = YES, so autoconf was guaranteed to be around.
Thanks,
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
PATCH 1/1 btrfs-progs: bump to version 4.7.2
Quoted 5 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
Applied to master, thanks. I was surprised you did not remove AUTORECONF = YES since we were patching configure.ac. But in fact, AUTORECONF = YES was not passed. Not sure how btrfs-progs was building... most likely one of its dependency has AUTORECONF = YES, so autoconf was guaranteed to be around.
Hi.
I've noticed the same though it didn't merit a commit note :) Regards.