udftools: new package
PATCH 1/1 udftools: new package
---
Try 2: fix stupid copy paste error in Config.in
Try 3: remove duplicate/misplaced addition to master Config.in
I wish I could see these issues when I first look the patch over - sigh
Try 4: Fixes for feedback from Thomas
I computed the hash below for the license file but I did not see any others under the package directory so I think I must be misunderstanding where it should go from my reading of the on-line manual # Locally computed
sha256 dcc100d4161cc0b7177545ab6e47216f84857cda3843847c792a25289852dcaa COPYING
I ran ./utils/check-package package/udftools/* and fixed up all the white space errors But I'm not sure what to do with ./utils/test-pkg, do I need to build all 47 tools chains? I tried ./utils/test-pkg -p udftools -c udftools.snippet (contents below) but just got errors BR2_PACKAGE_UDFTOOLS=y
How do I proceed from there?
DEVELOPERS | 1 + package/Config.in | 1 + package/udftools/Config.in | 12 ++++++++++++ package/udftools/udftools.hash | 2 ++ package/udftools/udftools.mk | 12 ++++++++++++ 5 files changed, 28 insertions(+) create mode 100644 package/udftools/Config.in create mode 100644 package/udftools/udftools.hash create mode 100644 package/udftools/udftools.mk
DEVELOPERS +1 -0
@@ -1681,6 +1681,7 @@ F: package/dvdrw-tools/ F: package/memtest86/ F: package/mjpegtools/ F: package/tovid/ +F: package/udftools/ F: package/xorriso/ N: Steve Thomas <[email protected]>
package/Config.in +1 -0
@@ -196,6 +196,7 @@ menu "Filesystem and flash utilities" source "package/squashfs/Config.in" source "package/sshfs/Config.in" source "package/sunxi-tools/Config.in" + source "package/udftools/Config.in" source "package/unionfs/Config.in" source "package/xfsprogs/Config.in" endmenu
package/udftools/Config.in new file +12 -0
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +config BR2_PACKAGE_UDFTOOLS + bool "udftools" + depends on BR2_USE_WCHAR + select BR2_PACKAGE_READLINE + help + Tools for creating UDF filesystems + Maintained fork of the 2004 Sourcforge package + + https://github.com/pali/udftools + +comment "udftools needs a toolchain w/ wchar" + depends on !BR2_USE_WCHAR
package/udftools/udftools.hash new file +2 -0
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +# Locally computed +sha256 67fe428d452901215cfad8049d250540c97114b1a20dd63277b91c2c4fae8292 udftools-2.0.tar.gz
package/udftools/udftools.mk new file +12 -0
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +################################################################################ +# +# udftools +# +################################################################################ + +UDFTOOLS_VERSION = 2.0 +UDFTOOLS_SITE = https://github.com/pali/udftools/releases/download/$(UDFTOOLS_VERSION) +UDFTOOLS_LICENSE = GPL-2.0+ +UDFTOOLS_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING + +$(eval $(autotools-package))
Signature · 1 line
2.9.0.137.gcf4c2cf
PATCH 1/1 udftools: new package
Hi Steve,
Quoted 3 lines · Steve Kenton
Signed-off-by Steve Kenton <[email protected]>I computed the hash below for the license file but I did not see any others under the package directory so I think I must be misunderstanding where it should go from my reading of the on-line manual
?
package/udftools/udftools.hash line 1
Quoted 13 lines
# Locally computed
sha256dcc100d4161cc0b7177545ab6e47216f84857cda3843847c792a25289852dcaaCOPYING
I ran ./utils/check-package package/udftools/* and fixed up all the white space errors But I'm not sure what to do with ./utils/test-pkg, do I need to build all 47 tools chains? I tried ./utils/test-pkg -p udftools -c udftools.snippet (contents below) but just got errors BR2_PACKAGE_UDFTOOLS=ypackage/udftools/udftools.hash new file +1
-0@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +# Locally computed
Sorry, I don't understand your comments. The computed hash should go here
package/udftools/udftools.hash line 2
Quoted 1 line
package/udftools/udftools.hash new file +1
-0+sha256 67fe428d452901215cfad8049d250540c97114b1a20dd63277b91c2c4fae8292 udftools-2.0.tar.gz
sha256 dcc100d4161cc0b7177545ab6e47216f84857cda3843847c792a25289852dcaa COPYING
Quoted 6 lines
package/udftools/udftools.mk new file +0
-0
package/udftools/udftools.mk line 9
Quoted 9 lines
package/udftools/udftools.mk new file +9
-0@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +################################################################################ +# +# udftools +# +################################################################################ + +UDFTOOLS_VERSION = 2.0 +UDFTOOLS_SITE = https://github.com/pali/udftools/releases/download/$(UDFTOOLS_VERSION) +UDFTOOLS_LICENSE = GPL-2.0+
The license is "GPL-2.0".
Quoted 10 lines
package/udftools/udftools.mk new file +3
-0+UDFTOOLS_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING + +$(eval $(autotools-package))Signature · 6 lines
2.9.0.137.gcf4c2cf _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot at busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
Best regards
Marcus Folkesson
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20180131/2c2695f6/attachment.asc>
PATCH 1/1 udftools: new package
In reply to Steve KentonHello,
Quoted 14 lines · Steve Kenton
Signed-off-by Steve Kenton <[email protected]>---
Try 2: fix stupid copy paste error in Config.in
Try 3: remove duplicate/misplaced addition to master Config.in
I wish I could see these issues when I first look the patch over - sigh
Try 4: Fixes for feedback from Thomas
I computed the hash below for the license file but I did not see any others under the package directory so I think I must be misunderstanding where it should go from my reading of the on-line manual # Locally computed
sha256dcc100d4161cc0b7177545ab6e47216f84857cda3843847c792a25289852dcaaCOPYING
I ran ./utils/check-package package/udftools/* and fixed up all the white space errors But I'm not sure what to do with ./utils/test-pkg, do I need to build all 47 tools chains? I tried ./utils/test-pkg -p udftools -c udftools.snippet (contents below) but just got errors BR2_PACKAGE_UDFTOOLS=y
I've added a hash for the license file, and applied to next. Thanks!
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
PATCH 1/1 udftools: new package
Thomas,
Quoted 18 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
Hello,
Quoted 14 lines · Steve Kenton
Signed-off-by Steve Kenton <[email protected]>---
Try 2: fix stupid copy paste error in Config.in
Try 3: remove duplicate/misplaced addition to master Config.in
I wish I could see these issues when I first look the patch over - sigh
Try 4: Fixes for feedback from Thomas
I computed the hash below for the license file but I did not see any others under the package directory so I think I must be misunderstanding where it should go from my reading of the on-line manual # Locally computed
sha256dcc100d4161cc0b7177545ab6e47216f84857cda3843847c792a25289852dcaaCOPYING
I ran ./utils/check-package package/udftools/* and fixed up all the white space errors But I'm not sure what to do with ./utils/test-pkg, do I need to build all 47 tools chains? I tried ./utils/test-pkg -p udftools -c udftools.snippet (contents below) but just got errors BR2_PACKAGE_UDFTOOLS=y
Quoted 1 line
I've added a hash for the license file, and applied to next. Thanks!
I think the license should be "GPL-2.0" ?
Quoted 10 lines
Thomas
Signature · 7 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot at busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
Best regards
Marcus Folkesson
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20180208/878c4a78/attachment.asc>
PATCH 1/1 udftools: new package
Hello,
Quoted 3 lines · Marcus Folkesson
Quoted 1 line
I've added a hash for the license file, and applied to next. Thanks!
I think the license should be "GPL-2.0" ?
All the source files that have a license header have the mention:
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.
So the license is GPL-2.0+.
Best regards,
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://bootlin.com