glibc 2.7 and 2.9 (arm): Remove unnecessary asm/page.h include
PATCH 1/1 glibc 2.7 and 2.9 (arm): Remove unnecessary asm/page.h include
Fix compile bug for arm with recent kernel headers ../ports/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arm/ioperm.c:48:22: error: asm/page.h: No such file or directory
---
Update to previous posting under
[PATCH] glibc 2.9: Remove unnecessary asm/page.h include, not present in recent headers
This patch is already included by the 2.6.1 recipe (thanks Khem)
Prevents the following error with recent kernel headers ../ports/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arm/ioperm.c:48:22: error: asm/page.h: No such file or directory
Fixes problem with 2.6.29 headers against both glibc 2.7 and 2.9
Related bug reports (with equivalent solutions)
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg38393.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/crossgcc/2008-05/msg00014.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2008-04/msg00005.html
Bug no longer exists at head of glibc ports tree. May effect other versions.
recipes/glibc/glibc_2.7.bb | 3 ++- recipes/glibc/glibc_2.9.bb | 3 ++- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
recipes/glibc/glibc_2.7.bb +2 -1
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ ARM_INSTRUCTION_SET = "arm" PACKAGES_DYNAMIC = "libc6*" RPROVIDES_${PN}-dev = "libc6-dev virtual-libc-dev" -PR = "${INC_PR}.0" +PR = "${INC_PR}.1" # the -isystem in bitbake.conf screws up glibc do_stage BUILD_CPPFLAGS = "-I${STAGING_INCDIR_NATIVE}"
@@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ SRC_URI = "ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/glibc/glibc-${PV}.tar.bz2 \ file://etc/ld.so.conf \ file://generate-supported.mk \ file://march-i686.patch;patch=1;pnum=0 \ + file://glibc-arm-no-asm-page.patch;patch=1 \ "
recipes/glibc/glibc_2.9.bb +2 -1
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ ARM_INSTRUCTION_SET = "arm" PACKAGES_DYNAMIC = "libc6*" RPROVIDES_${PN}-dev = "libc6-dev virtual-libc-dev" -PR = "${INC_PR}.0" +PR = "${INC_PR}.1" # the -isystem in bitbake.conf screws up glibc do_stage BUILD_CPPFLAGS = "-I${STAGING_INCDIR_NATIVE}"
@@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ SRC_URI = "ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/glibc/glibc-${PV}.tar.bz2 \ file://generate-supported.mk \ file://march-i686.patch;patch=1;pnum=0 \ file://tls_i486.patch;patch=1 \ + file://glibc-arm-no-asm-page.patch;patch=1 \ "
Signature · 1 line
1.6.3.3
Quoted 5 lines · On Monday 17 August 2009 15:53:00 you wrote:
Fix compile bug for arm with recent kernel headers
../ports/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arm/ioperm.c:48:22: error:asm/page.h: No such file or directorySigned-off-by Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]>
One note worthy comment. Normally we only bump the PR when the packaged content is changing. In one way we had a build error so the packaging didn't change at all, in another way we do have existing glibc packages...
To be honest I wonder why you are triggering this area, and why other builds don't do that... it is a bit frightening.
Quoted 66 lines
---
Update to previous posting under
[PATCH] glibc 2.9: Remove unnecessaryasm/page.hinclude, not present in recent headersThis patch is already included by the 2.6.1 recipe (thanks Khem) Prevents the following error with recent kernel headers
../ports/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arm/ioperm.c:48:22: error:asm/page.h: No such file or directoryFixes problem with 2.6.29 headers against both glibc 2.7 and 2.9
Related bug reports (with equivalent solutions)
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg38393.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/crossgcc/2008-05/msg00014.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2008-04/msg00005.htmlBug no longer exists at head of glibc ports tree. May effect other versions.
recipes/glibc/glibc_2.7.bb | 3 ++- recipes/glibc/glibc_2.9.bb | 3 ++- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)recipes/glibc/glibc_2.7.bb +2
-1@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ ARM_INSTRUCTION_SET = "arm" PACKAGES_DYNAMIC = "libc6*" RPROVIDES_${PN}-dev = "libc6-dev virtual-libc-dev" -PR = "${INC_PR}.0" +PR = "${INC_PR}.1" # the -isystem in bitbake.conf screws up glibc do_stage BUILD_CPPFLAGS = "-I${STAGING_INCDIR_NATIVE}"@@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ SRC_URI = "ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/glibc/glibc-${PV}.tar.bz2 \ file://etc/ld.so.conf \ file://generate-supported.mk \ file://march-i686.patch;patch=1;pnum=0 \ + file://glibc-arm-no-asm-page.patch;patch=1 \ "recipes/glibc/glibc_2.9.bb +2
-1@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ ARM_INSTRUCTION_SET = "arm" PACKAGES_DYNAMIC = "libc6*" RPROVIDES_${PN}-dev = "libc6-dev virtual-libc-dev" -PR = "${INC_PR}.0" +PR = "${INC_PR}.1" # the -isystem in bitbake.conf screws up glibc do_stage BUILD_CPPFLAGS = "-I${STAGING_INCDIR_NATIVE}"@@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ SRC_URI = "ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/glibc/glibc-${PV}.tar.bz2 \ file://generate-supported.mk \ file://march-i686.patch;patch=1;pnum=0 \ file://tls_i486.patch;patch=1 \ + file://glibc-arm-no-asm-page.patch;patch=1 \ "
Quoted 2 lines · Holger Hans Peter Freyther
To be honest I wonder why you are triggering this area, and why other builds don't do that... it is a bit frightening.
I expect it's nothing more sinister than different versions of linux-libc-headers. <asm/page.h> was there in 2.6.23 but, it seems, gone by 2.6.29. So, probably no cause for alarm.
p.
Quoted 7 lines · Phil Blundell
Quoted 2 lines · Holger Hans Peter Freyther
To be honest I wonder why you are triggering this area, and why other builds don't do that... it is a bit frightening.
I expect it's nothing more sinister than different versions of linux-libc-headers. <
asm/page.h> was there in 2.6.23 but, it seems, gone by 2.6.29. So, probably no cause for alarm.
Oh, and, as for bumping PR: in this case I would suggest not doing it. The output binaries should be identical with and without that header, and for folks doing online upgrades it is a bit of a pain to have glibc rebuild unnecessarily.
p.
Hello Phil
Quoted 4 lines · Phil Blundell
Oh, and, as for bumping PR: in this case I would suggest not doing it. The output binaries should be identical with and without that header, and for folks doing online upgrades it is a bit of a pain to have glibc rebuild unnecessarily.
I disagree and think it ought to be bumped so it gets deployed and tested as soon as possible.
People that cares about online updates are supposed to be using stable to reduce it.
Signature · 3 lines
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: [email protected] http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br
Quoted 5 lines · Holger Hans Peter Freyther
Quoted 4 lines · On Monday 17 August 2009 15:53:00 you wrote:
Fix compile bug for arm with recent kernel headers
../ports/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arm/ioperm.c:48:22: error:asm/page.h: No such file or directory
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Holger Hans Peter Freyther <[email protected]>One note worthy comment. Normally we only bump the PR when the packaged content is changing. In one way we had a build error so the packaging didn't change at all, in another way we do have existing glibc packages...
Cool, hadn't realized that.
Quoted 3 lines
To be honest I wonder why you are triggering this area, and why other builds don't do that... it is a bit frightening.
My guess is the majority of distros haven't bumped up either one of the kernel header or glibc. Either that or I'm just unlucky in picking combinations!
Quick browse of those in the repository: (headers will cause trouble form 2.6.25 onwards, I think).
angstrom-2008.1.conf headers = 2.6.23
chinook-compat.conf headers = 2.6.20
jlime2-2009.1 headers headers = 2.6.18
jlime-donkey.conf glibc 2.6.1 (the fixed version) headers 2.6.23 (so don't need it) jlime-henchman.conf headers = 2.6.23
jlime-mongo.conf headers = 2.6.18
kaeilos.conf glibc = 2.6.1 (fixed) headers =2.6.23 (fine anyway) mamona.conf headers 2.6.22
nylon.conf headers 2.6.18
openprotium headers 2.6.11.1
oplinux.conf headers 2.6.18
Normally people don't care about kernel header versions, but I need some netlink stuff that only just went in.
Thanks,
Jonathan
Quoted 75 lines
Quoted 63 lines
---
Update to previous posting under
[PATCH] glibc 2.9: Remove unnecessaryasm/page.hinclude, not present in recent headersThis patch is already included by the 2.6.1 recipe (thanks Khem) Prevents the following error with recent kernel headers
../ports/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arm/ioperm.c:48:22: error:asm/page.h: No such file or directoryFixes problem with 2.6.29 headers against both glibc 2.7 and 2.9
Related bug reports (with equivalent solutions)
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg38393.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/crossgcc/2008-05/msg00014.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2008-04/msg00005.htmlBug no longer exists at head of glibc ports tree. May effect other versions.
recipes/glibc/glibc_2.7.bb | 3 ++- recipes/glibc/glibc_2.9.bb | 3 ++- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)recipes/glibc/glibc_2.7.bb +2
-1@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ ARM_INSTRUCTION_SET = "arm" PACKAGES_DYNAMIC = "libc6*" RPROVIDES_${PN}-dev = "libc6-dev virtual-libc-dev" -PR = "${INC_PR}.0" +PR = "${INC_PR}.1" # the -isystem in bitbake.conf screws up glibc do_stage BUILD_CPPFLAGS = "-I${STAGING_INCDIR_NATIVE}"@@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ SRC_URI = "ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/glibc/glibc-${PV}.tar.bz2 \ file://etc/ld.so.conf \ file://generate-supported.mk \ file://march-i686.patch;patch=1;pnum=0 \ + file://glibc-arm-no-asm-page.patch;patch=1 \ "recipes/glibc/glibc_2.9.bb +1
-1@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ ARM_INSTRUCTION_SET = "arm" PACKAGES_DYNAMIC = "libc6*" RPROVIDES_${PN}-dev = "libc6-dev virtual-libc-dev" -PR = "${INC_PR}.0" +PR = "${INC_PR}.1" # the -isystem in bitbake.conf screws up glibc do_stage BUILD_CPPFLAGS = "-I${STAGING_INCDIR_NATIVE}"recipes/glibc/glibc_2.9.bb SRC_URI = · line 70
Quoted 6 lines
recipes/glibc/glibc_2.9.bb +1
-0@@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ SRC_URI = "ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/glibc/glibc-${PV}.tar.bz2 \ file://generate-supported.mk \ file://march-i686.patch;patch=1;pnum=0 \ file://tls_i486.patch;patch=1 \ + file://glibc-arm-no-asm-page.patch;patch=1 \ "_______________________________________________
Openembedded-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
Quoted 8 lines · Otavio Salvador
Hello Phil
Quoted 4 lines · Phil Blundell
Oh, and, as for bumping PR: in this case I would suggest not doing it. The output binaries should be identical with and without that header, and for folks doing online upgrades it is a bit of a pain to have glibc rebuild unnecessarily.
Quoted 6 lines
I disagree and think it ought to be bumped so it gets deployed and tested as soon as possible.
People that cares about online updates are supposed to be using stable to reduce it.
Happy to go with either option, but keen to get this merged soon.
Can we come to a consensus on whether to bump the PR?
If we do want to, can someone push this to the repository.
Thanks,
Jonathan