shapelib: new package
PATCH 1/1 shapelib: new package
--- package/Config.in | 1 + package/shapelib/Config.in | 8 ++++++++ package/shapelib/shapelib.hash | 3 +++ package/shapelib/shapelib.mk | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 37 insertions(+) create mode 100644 package/shapelib/Config.in create mode 100644 package/shapelib/shapelib.hash create mode 100644 package/shapelib/shapelib.mk
package/Config.in +1 -0
@@ -1333,6 +1333,7 @@ endif source "package/protobuf-c/Config.in" source "package/qhull/Config.in" source "package/qlibc/Config.in" + source "package/shapelib/Config.in" source "package/sphinxbase/Config.in" source "package/startup-notification/Config.in" source "package/tinycbor/Config.in"
package/shapelib/Config.in new file +8 -0
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ +config BR2_PACKAGE_SHAPELIB + bool "shapelib" + help + The Shapefile C Library provides the ability to write simple C programs + for reading, writing and updating (to a limited extent) ESRI Shapefiles, + and the associated attribute file (.dbf). + + http://shapelib.maptools.org/
package/shapelib/shapelib.hash new file +3 -0
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +# Locally computed +sha256 23d474016158ab5077db2f599527631706ba5c0dc7c4178a6a1d685bb014f68f shapelib-1.3.0.tar.gz +
package/shapelib/shapelib.mk new file +25 -0
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +################################################################################ +# +# shapelib +# +################################################################################ + +SHAPELIB_VERSION = 1.3.0 +SHAPELIB_SITE = http://download.osgeo.org/shapelib +SHAPELIB_LICENSE = LGPL +SHAPELIB_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE.LGPL +SHAPELIB_INSTALL_STAGING = YES + +define SHAPELIB_BUILD_CMDS + $(TARGET_CONFIGURE_OPTS) $(MAKE) -C $(@D) +endef + +define SHAPELIB_INSTALL_STAGING_CMDS + $(MAKE) -C $(@D) PREFIX=$(STAGING_DIR)/usr/ lib_install +endef + +define SHAPELIB_INSTALL_TARGET_CMDS + $(MAKE) -C $(@D) PREFIX=$(TARGET_DIR)/usr/ bin_install +endef + +$(eval $(generic-package))
Signature · 1 line
2.7.4
PATCH 1/1 shapelib: new package
Hello,
Quoted 10 lines · Zoltan Gyarmati
Signed-off-by Zoltan Gyarmati <[email protected]>--- package/Config.in | 1 + package/shapelib/Config.in | 8 ++++++++ package/shapelib/shapelib.hash | 3 +++ package/shapelib/shapelib.mk | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 37 insertions(+) create mode 100644 package/shapelib/Config.in create mode 100644 package/shapelib/shapelib.hash create mode 100644 package/shapelib/shapelib.mk
Thanks, I've applied your patch, after doing the following changes:
[Thomas:
- adjust the license: it's MIT or LGPLv2, add web/license.html to the license files
- rewrap Config.in help text
- add entry to the DEVELOPERS file.]
Best regards,
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
PATCH 1/1 shapelib: new package
Hi Thomas,
Quoted 7 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
Thanks, I've applied your patch, after doing the following changes:
[Thomas:
- adjust the license: it's MIT or LGPLv2, add web/license.html to the license files
- rewrap Config.in help text
- add entry to the DEVELOPERS file.]
A DEVELOPERS file update on every new package makes cherry-picking harder. For that reason, I think, Peter stopped updating the CHANGES file in every patch.
baruch
Signature · 3 lines
http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
- baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -PATCH 1/1 shapelib: new package
Hello,
Quoted 11 lines · Baruch Siach
Quoted 7 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
Thanks, I've applied your patch, after doing the following changes:
[Thomas:
- adjust the license: it's MIT or LGPLv2, add web/license.html to the license files
- rewrap Config.in help text
- add entry to the DEVELOPERS file.]A DEVELOPERS file update on every new package makes cherry-picking harder. For that reason, I think, Peter stopped updating the CHANGES file in every patch.
Right. What should we do then? Update the DEVELOPERS file in a separate patch? But then we're going to have zillions of patches whose sole purpose of to update the DEVELOPERS file. But of course, that's better for cherry-picking.
Opinions?
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
PATCH 1/1 shapelib: new package
Quoted 14 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <[email protected]> writes:
Hello,
Quoted 9 lines · Baruch Siach
Quoted 7 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
Thanks, I've applied your patch, after doing the following changes:
[Thomas:
- adjust the license: it's MIT or LGPLv2, add web/license.html to the license files
- rewrap Config.in help text
- add entry to the DEVELOPERS file.]
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
A DEVELOPERS file update on every new package makes cherry-picking harder. For that reason, I think, Peter stopped updating the CHANGES file in every patch.
Right. What should we do then? Update the DEVELOPERS file in a separate patch? But then we're going to have zillions of patches whose sole purpose of to update the DEVELOPERS file. But of course, that's better for cherry-picking.
Either that or I update DEVELOPERS when I also update CHANGES, but not everyone might want to get listed / might want to get listed without being the author of the commit adding the package.
Signature · 1 line
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
PATCH 1/1 shapelib: new package
Hi Peter,
Quoted 6 lines · Peter Korsgaard
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <[email protected]> writes:
Quoted 3 lines · Baruch Siach
A DEVELOPERS file update on every new package makes cherry-picking harder. For that reason, I think, Peter stopped updating the CHANGES file in every patch.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Right. What should we do then? Update the DEVELOPERS file in a separate patch? But then we're going to have zillions of patches whose sole purpose of to update the DEVELOPERS file. But of course, that's better for cherry-picking.
Either that or I update DEVELOPERS when I also update CHANGES, but not everyone might want to get listed / might want to get listed without being the author of the commit adding the package.
A DEVELOPERS entry is probably most useful when the package is first added, as it starts showing up in the autobuilder. Delaying the DEVELOPERS update reduces its usefulness.
baruch
Signature · 3 lines
http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
- baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -PATCH 1/1 shapelib: new package
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Baruch" == Baruch Siach <[email protected]> writes:
Hi,
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Either that or I update DEVELOPERS when I also update CHANGES, but not everyone might want to get listed / might want to get listed without being the author of the commit adding the package.
A DEVELOPERS entry is probably most useful when the package is first added, as it starts showing up in the autobuilder. Delaying the DEVELOPERS update reduces its usefulness.
Correct. I don't think the additional trivial commits to adjust DEVELOPERS are really an issue, so lets just ask people to send a 2nd patch to update the file whenever new packages (or families of packages) are added.
Signature · 2 lines
Venlig hilsen, Peter Korsgaard
PATCH 1/1 shapelib: new package
Hello,
Quoted 8 lines · Peter Korsgaard
Quoted 3 lines
A DEVELOPERS entry is probably most useful when the package is first added, as it starts showing up in the autobuilder. Delaying the DEVELOPERS update reduces its usefulness.
Correct. I don't think the additional trivial commits to adjust DEVELOPERS are really an issue, so lets just ask people to send a 2nd patch to update the file whenever new packages (or families of packages) are added.
OK. In fact the manual already says it should be done in a separate patch, so I simply failed to follow my own instructions :)
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
PATCH 1/1 shapelib: new package
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <[email protected]> writes:
Correct. I don't think the additional trivial commits to adjust DEVELOPERS are really an issue, so lets just ask people to send a 2nd patch to update the file whenever new packages (or families of packages) are added.
OK. In fact the manual already says it should be done in a separate patch, so I simply failed to follow my own instructions :)
Hah! ;)
Signature · 2 lines
Venlig hilsen, Peter Korsgaard
PATCH 1/1 shapelib: new package
In reply to Baruch SiachHello,
Quoted 7 lines · Baruch Siach
Quoted 3 lines
Either that or I update DEVELOPERS when I also update CHANGES, but not everyone might want to get listed / might want to get listed without being the author of the commit adding the package.
A DEVELOPERS entry is probably most useful when the package is first added, as it starts showing up in the autobuilder. Delaying the DEVELOPERS update reduces its usefulness.
Exactly my thought: I want the DEVELOPERS file to be updated at the same time as a package is added, so that as soon there are autobuilder failures, they are directly reported to the person who contributed the package. That's one of the big points for having this DEVELOPERS file.
Best regards,
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com