package/libfuse: fix internal version number
PATCH 1/1 package/libfuse: fix internal version number
Upstream forgot to bump the internal version number to 2.9.5 during the last update. Roland Franke sent me an e-mail about it before posting to the buildroot mailinglist, in order to help the integration of this patch into buildroot I am sending this patch formatted by git.
--- .../libfuse/0002-fix-libfuse-versionsnumber.patch | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+) create mode 100644 package/libfuse/0002-fix-libfuse-versionsnumber.patch
package/libfuse/0002-fix-libfuse-versionsnumber.patch new file +33 -0
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +Fix version number of build files from libfuse to real version + +Bug was reported upstream: https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/issues/10 +and will be fixed with the next release: +https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/issues/10#issuecomment-172380172 + +Signed-off-by: Roland Franke <[email protected]> +[original post: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2016-February/154294.html] +Signed-off-by: Bernd Kuhls <[email protected]> +[added links to upstream bug report] + +--- a/lib/Makefile.am ++++ b/lib/Makefile.am +@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ + $(iconv_source) \ + $(mount_source) + +-libfuse_la_LDFLAGS = -pthread @libfuse_libs@ -version-number 2:9:4 \ ++libfuse_la_LDFLAGS = -pthread @libfuse_libs@ -version-number 2:9:5 \ + -Wl,--version-script,$(srcdir)/fuse_versionscript + + if NETBSD +--- a/lib/Makefile.in ++++ b/lib/Makefile.in +@@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ + $(iconv_source) \ + $(mount_source) + +-libfuse_la_LDFLAGS = -pthread @libfuse_libs@ -version-number 2:9:4 \ ++libfuse_la_LDFLAGS = -pthread @libfuse_libs@ -version-number 2:9:5 \ + -Wl,--version-script,$(srcdir)/fuse_versionscript + + @NETBSD_TRUE at libfuse_la_LIBADD = -lperfuse -lpuffs
Signature · 1 line
2.7.0
PATCH 1/1 package/libfuse: fix internal version number
Quoted 4 lines · Bernd Kuhls
Upstream forgot to bump the internal version number to 2.9.5 during the last update. Roland Franke sent me an e-mail about it before posting to the buildroot mailinglist, in order to help the integration of this patch into buildroot I am sending this patch formatted by git.
All this explanation should have been below a --- because it doesn't belong in
the git history.
Also, this doesn't explain what the real problem is, something like:
This will generate a library with the wrong library name.
AFAIU this is anyway harmless, so I guess it can go into next.
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by Roland Franke <[email protected]>
Bernd, you can't just add someone else's Signed-off-by.
Roland, can you confirm that you sign off this patch (see [1])?
[1] http://developercertificate.org/
With all that:
Regards,
Arnout
Quoted 46 lines
Signed-off-by Bernd Kuhls <[email protected]>--- .../libfuse/0002-fix-libfuse-versionsnumber.patch | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+) create mode 100644 package/libfuse/0002-fix-libfuse-versionsnumber.patchpackage/libfuse/0002-fix-libfuse-versionsnumber.patch new file +33
-0@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +Fix version number of build files from libfuse to real version + +Bug was reported upstream: https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/issues/10 +and will be fixed with the next release: +https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/issues/10#issuecomment-172380172 + +Signed-off-by: Roland Franke <[email protected]> +[original post: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2016-February/154294.html] +Signed-off-by: Bernd Kuhls <[email protected]> +[added links to upstream bug report] + +--- a/lib/Makefile.am ++++ b/lib/Makefile.am +@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ + $(iconv_source) \ + $(mount_source) + +-libfuse_la_LDFLAGS = -pthread @libfuse_libs@ -version-number 2:9:4 \ ++libfuse_la_LDFLAGS = -pthread @libfuse_libs@ -version-number 2:9:5 \ + -Wl,--version-script,$(srcdir)/fuse_versionscript + + if NETBSD +--- a/lib/Makefile.in ++++ b/lib/Makefile.in +@@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ + $(iconv_source) \ + $(mount_source) + +-libfuse_la_LDFLAGS = -pthread @libfuse_libs@ -version-number 2:9:4 \ ++libfuse_la_LDFLAGS = -pthread @libfuse_libs@ -version-number 2:9:5 \ + -Wl,--version-script,$(srcdir)/fuse_versionscript + + @NETBSD_TRUE at libfuse_la_LIBADD = -lperfuse -lpuffs
Signature · 6 lines
Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF
PATCH 1/1 package/libfuse: fix internal version number
Hello,
yes this patch will fix the version in the file for the installation as by the
sourch-code from original version 2.9.5 will install in the output with the wrong version 2.9.4.
I also guess that i am have sign the patch regarding the given link. And this is the first time that i am trying to do that by my self, so please note that i am not complete knowing all the thinks what be need.
Best regards,
Roland Franke
-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
From: Arnout Vandecappelle
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 4:54 PM
To: Bernd Kuhls ; buildroot at buildroot.org
Cc: Roland Franke
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] package/libfuse: fix internal version number
Quoted 4 lines · Bernd Kuhls
Upstream forgot to bump the internal version number to 2.9.5 during the last update. Roland Franke sent me an e-mail about it before posting to the buildroot mailinglist, in order to help the integration of this patch into buildroot I am sending this patch formatted by git.
All this explanation should have been below a --- because it doesn't belong in
the git history.
Also, this doesn't explain what the real problem is, something like:
This will generate a library with the wrong library name.
AFAIU this is anyway harmless, so I guess it can go into next.
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by Roland Franke <[email protected]>
Bernd, you can't just add someone else's Signed-off-by.
Roland, can you confirm that you sign off this patch (see [1])?
[1] http://developercertificate.org/
With all that:
Regards,
Arnout
Quoted 49 lines
Signed-off-by Bernd Kuhls <[email protected]>--- .../libfuse/0002-fix-libfuse-versionsnumber.patch | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+) create mode 100644 package/libfuse/0002-fix-libfuse-versionsnumber.patchpackage/libfuse/0002-fix-libfuse-versionsnumber.patch new file +8
-0@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +Fix version number of build files from libfuse to real version + +Bug was reported upstream: https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/issues/10 +and will be fixed with the next release: +https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/issues/10#issuecomment-172380172 + +Signed-off-by: Roland Franke <[email protected]> +[original post:http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2016-February/154294.html]
package/libfuse/0002-fix-libfuse-versionsnumber.patch new file +25
-0+Signed-off-by: Bernd Kuhls <[email protected]> +[added links to upstream bug report] + +--- a/lib/Makefile.am ++++ b/lib/Makefile.am +@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ + $(iconv_source) \ + $(mount_source) + +-libfuse_la_LDFLAGS = -pthread @libfuse_libs@ -version-number 2:9:4 \ ++libfuse_la_LDFLAGS = -pthread @libfuse_libs@ -version-number 2:9:5 \ + -Wl,--version-script,$(srcdir)/fuse_versionscript + + if NETBSD +--- a/lib/Makefile.in ++++ b/lib/Makefile.in +@@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ + $(iconv_source) \ + $(mount_source) + +-libfuse_la_LDFLAGS = -pthread @libfuse_libs@ -version-number 2:9:4 \ ++libfuse_la_LDFLAGS = -pthread @libfuse_libs@ -version-number 2:9:5 \ + -Wl,--version-script,$(srcdir)/fuse_versionscript + + @NETBSD_TRUE at libfuse_la_LIBADD = -lperfuse -lpuffs
Signature · 6 lines
Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF
PATCH 1/1 package/libfuse: fix internal version number
In reply to Bernd KuhlsQuoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Bernd" == Bernd Kuhls <[email protected]> writes:
Upstream forgot to bump the internal version number to 2.9.5 during the last update. Roland Franke sent me an e-mail about it before posting to the buildroot mailinglist, in order to help the integration of this patch into buildroot I am sending this patch formatted by git.
What is the practical impact of this? Is it purely cosmetical?
Signature · 1 line
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
PATCH 1/1 package/libfuse: fix internal version number
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Bernd" == Bernd Kuhls <[email protected]> writes:
Upstream forgot to bump the internal version number to 2.9.5 during the last update. Roland Franke sent me an e-mail about it before posting to the buildroot mailinglist, in order to help the integration of this patch into buildroot I am sending this patch formatted by git.
What is the practical impact of this? Is it purely cosmetical?
In the system (fli4l) we have fix filenames inside the system. So how can we differ without correct filenames?
How should we know if there is the real version 2.9.4 or the version 2.9.5 will be used?
How should be known if changes between version 2.9.4 and 2.9.5 realy be installed?
So the result is more cosmetical for most users. But in situations you have more versions available for download, you should be sure to have an right version-number.
--
Bye, Roland Franke
PATCH 1/1 package/libfuse: fix internal version number
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Roland" == Roland Franke <[email protected]> writes:
Hi,
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 1 line
What is the practical impact of this? Is it purely cosmetical?
In the system (fli4l) we have fix filenames inside the system. So how can we differ without correct filenames?
How should we know if there is the real version 2.9.4 or the version 2.9.5 will be used?
How should be known if changes between version 2.9.4 and 2.9.5 realy be installed?
Quoted 3 lines
So the result is more cosmetical for most users. But in situations you have more versions available for download, you should be sure to have an right version-number.
Ok, so in the context of Buildroot itself, it is purely cosmetical. Thanks.
Signature · 2 lines
Venlig hilsen, Peter Korsgaard