Hello. On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 19:20, Simon Busch wrote: > On 28.07.2010 15:44, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2010-07-26 at 21:58, Simon Busch wrote: > >> On 26.07.2010 09:46, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > >>> Hello. > >>> > >>> On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 20:44, Simon Busch wrote: > >>>> This rebases all specific versions of lvm2 on a global recipe lvm2.inc > >>>> which defines the > >>>> common parameters for building lvm2. Staging is overwritten as we don't > >>>> need any of the > >>>> executables or manpages the build of lvm2 produces for any related > >>>> builds. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Busch <morp...@gravedo.de> > >>> > >>> Looks good. Two comments below. > >> > >> Thank you for commenting this patches! > >> > >>> > >>>> diff --git a/recipes/lvm2/lvm2.inc b/recipes/lvm2/lvm2.inc > >>>> new file mode 100644 > >>>> index 0000000..a7e37b5 > >>>> --- /dev/null > >>>> +++ b/recipes/lvm2/lvm2.inc > >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ > >>>> +SECTION = "utils" > >>>> +DESCRIPTION = "LVM2 is a set of utilities to manage logical volumes in > >>>> Linux." > >>>> +LICENSE = "GPL" > >>>> +DEPENDS = "device-mapper" > >>>> +INC_PR = "r2" > >>>> + > >>>> +S = "${WORKDIR}/LVM2.${PV}" > >>>> +SRC_URI = "ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/lvm2/old/LVM2.${PV}.tgz \ > >>>> + file://crosscompile_fix.patch" > >>>> + > >>>> +# Unset user/group to unbreak install. > >>>> +EXTRA_OECONF = "--with-user= --with-group= --disable-o_direct" > >>>> +EXTRA_OECONF_arm = "--with-user= --with-group= --disable-o_direct" > >>> > >>> I can see that you just merged this in from an already existing recipe, > >>> but do > >>> we know why we have an overrirde for ARM here which changes nothing? > >>> Looks bogus > >>> to me. > >> > >> Hm, you are right. I checked it with recompiling without the > >> EXTRA_OECONF_arm statement. It works fine. Is it ok if I supply an extra > >> patch removing this statement or should I rework this patch? > > > > Both is fine with me. > > > >>>> +inherit autotools > >>>> + > >>>> +# We don't need to stage anything (the executables are no needed at > >>>> build time by any > >>>> +# other recipe) > >>>> +do_stage() { > >>>> +} > >>> > >>> While we don't need the executables the don't hurd either IMHO. Can we > >>> get rid > >>> of this? > >>> > >> > >> The problem was, that the executables and manpages where installed into > >> the staging dir and never removed, when the packages was clean ur > >> purged. So I added the empty do_stage block to avoid stage of anything > >> from this package as we don't need them anyway. > > > > Hm, this smells like a bug somewhere else. Did the staged binaries bring in > > other problems or could they get staged until we find out why they are not > > removed? > > Staging this binaries let the recompile of the same package fail as it > tries to install the binaries + man pages again. > Any hints where the bug could be? Within the staging logic?
Good question. Maybe only a bug in the clean step that it ignores the files during cleaning. Anybody else an idea? You could also add a do_install_append which removes the binaries again. regards Stefan Schmidt _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel