Skip to contentSkip to conversation

Add Package: htop

Buildroot Andy Kennedy 2 participants 6 messages Mar 28, 2011

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

Adds package htop. Changes made based upon e-mails with Mike Frysinger and Gerhard Heift. The autoreconf change is important for anyone using uClibc as there is no widely available backtrace (yet).

---

package/Config.in 2011-03-21 17:29:22.000000000 -0500 renamed from package/Config.in 2011-03-14 10:39:51.000000000 -0500 +3 -0
diff -Naur a/package/Config.in b/package/Config.in
@@ -476,6 +476,9 @@
 menu "System tools"
 if BR2_PACKAGE_BUSYBOX_SHOW_OTHERS
 source "package/bootutils/Config.in"
+endif
+source "package/htop/Config.in"
+if BR2_PACKAGE_BUSYBOX_SHOW_OTHERS
 source "package/module-init-tools/Config.in"
 source "package/procps/Config.in"
 source "package/psmisc/Config.in"
package/htop/Config.in 2011-03-21 17:29:22.000000000 -0500 renamed from package/htop/Config.in 1969-12-31 18:00:00.000000000 -0600 +8 -0
diff -Naur a/package/htop/Config.in b/package/htop/Config.in
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+config BR2_PACKAGE_HTOP
+       bool "htop"
+       select BR2_PACKAGE_NCURSES
+       help
+         htop is an interactive text-mode process viewer for Linux.
+         It aims to be a better top.
+
+         http://sourceforge.net/projects/htop/
package/htop/htop.patch 2011-03-21 17:29:22.000000000 -0500 renamed from package/htop/htop.patch 1969-12-31 18:00:00.000000000 -0600 +70 -0

70 lines not on this page · raw message

package/htop/htop.mk 2011-03-22 09:31:54.000000000 -0500 renamed from package/htop/htop.mk 1969-12-31 18:00:00.000000000 -0600 +12 -0
diff -Naur a/package/htop/htop.mk b/package/htop/htop.mk
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+#############################################################
+#
+# htop
+#
+#############################################################
+HTOP_VERSION = 0.9
+HTOP_SOURCE = htop-$(HTOP_VERSION).tar.gz
+HTOP_SITE = http://$(BR2_SOURCEFORGE_MIRROR).dl.sourceforge.net/htop/$(HTOP_VERSION)
+HTOP_DEPENDENCIES = ncurses
+HTOP_AUTORECONF=YES
+
+$(eval $(call AUTOTARGETS,package,htop))
#1 lore raw
Quoted 3 lines · Andy Kennedy

Adds package htop. ?Changes made based upon e-mails with Mike Frysinger and Gerhard Heift. ?The autoreconf change is important for anyone using uClibc as there is no widely available backtrace (yet).

this ver looks mostly sane ...

Quoted 1 line

++AC_CHECK_HEADERS([execinfo.h],[:],[:])

no need for munging the other branches
AC_CHECK_HEADERS([execinfo.h])

Quoted 4 lines

++if test "$cross_compiling" = "no"; then
+ AC_CHECK_FILE($PROCDIR/stat,,AC_MSG_ERROR(Cannot find /proc/stat. Make sure you have a Linux-compatible /proc filesystem mounted. See the file README for help.))
+ AC_CHECK_FILE($PROCDIR/meminfo,,AC_MSG_ERROR(Cannot find /proc/meminfo. Make sure you have a Linux-compatible /proc filesystem mounted. See the file README for help.)) ++fi

AC_CHECK_FILE has fallback cases for cross-compiling i thought, so you shouldnt need to check cross_compiling yourself
-mike

#2 lore raw
Quoted 18 lines · Andy Kennedy
Quoted 1 line

Adds package htop. ?Changes made based upon e-mails with Mike

Frysinger

Quoted 1 line

and Gerhard Heift. ?The autoreconf change is important for anyone

using

Quoted 1 line

uClibc as there is no widely available backtrace (yet).

this ver looks mostly sane ...

Quoted 1 line

++AC_CHECK_HEADERS([execinfo.h],[:],[:])

no need for munging the other branches
AC_CHECK_HEADERS([execinfo.h])

Quoted 2 lines

++if test "$cross_compiling" = "no"; then
+ AC_CHECK_FILE($PROCDIR/stat,,AC_MSG_ERROR(Cannot find

/proc/stat. Make sure you have a Linux-compatible /proc filesystem mounted. See the file README for help.))

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line

+ AC_CHECK_FILE($PROCDIR/meminfo,,AC_MSG_ERROR(Cannot find

/proc/meminfo. Make sure you have a Linux-compatible /proc filesystem mounted. See the file README for help.))

Quoted 1 line

++fi

AC_CHECK_FILE has fallback cases for cross-compiling i thought, so you
shouldnt need to check cross_compiling yourself

The error was really strange. I submitted this patch to htop and they tested, modified and included it as a fix. The problem was that when one is cross compiling, the test for /proc fails since the build is a cross build -- there were enough smarts to not test when cross building, however, the return value was a failure for the /proc tests. This _should_ not occur so we skip the whole test.

This patch was derived by getting the current branch via svn and running a diff against configure.ac.

Quoted 1 line

-mike

Andy

#3 lore raw
Quoted 2 lines · ANDY KENNEDY

This patch was derived by getting the current branch via svn and running a diff against configure.ac.

ok, np then. i might mention in the patch header "this is already in upstream svn".
-mike

#4 lore raw
Quoted 7 lines · ANDY KENNEDY
Quoted 2 lines

This patch was derived by getting the current branch via svn and running a diff against configure.ac.

ok, np then. i might mention in the patch header "this is already in
upstream svn".

Kinda sorta did:

+# This patch removes the hard dependency on backtrace by checking for +# it at compile time and adds a cross-compile /proc check. +# Patch given to me by Hisham <[email protected]> (htop-general)

Hisham is the main developer. You want me to modify this patch again and resubmit? I don't mind -- and it wouldn't take long.

Quoted 1 line

-mike

Andy

#5 lore raw
Quoted 8 lines · ANDY KENNEDY
Quoted 6 lines · ANDY KENNEDY
Quoted 2 lines

This patch was derived by getting the current branch via svn and running a diff against configure.ac.

ok, np then. ?i might mention in the patch header "this is already in upstream svn".

Kinda sorta did:

yes, but the sorta isnt explicit ;)

Quoted 6 lines
package/htop/htop.patch 2011-03-21 17:29:22.000000000 -0500 renamed from package/htop/htop.patch 1969-12-31 18:00:00.000000000 -0600 +3 -0
+# This patch removes the hard dependency on backtrace by checking for
+# it at compile time and adds a cross-compile /proc check.
+# Patch given to me by Hisham <[email protected]> (htop-general)

Hisham is the main developer. ?You want me to modify this patch again and resubmit? ?I don't mind -- and it wouldn't take long.

yes, please add an explicit "This patch is taken from upstream svn." -mike