On Wed, 2020-03-25 at 16:16 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > libtool patch will result in configure file regeneration, instead of > doing that at build time, do it in patch itself, this avoids running > autoconf before configure step. > > Since binutils needs specific version of autoconf ( which is 2.69 ) > this will break on systems using newer or older verisons of autoconf > in current state. > > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> > Cc: Ross Burton <ross.bur...@intel.com> > --- > meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc | 8 +- > .../binutils/0007-Use-libtool-2.4.patch | 26583 ++++++++++++ > ---- > 2 files changed, 20352 insertions(+), 6239 deletions(-)
Whilst I appreciate the intent here, our policy is to autoreconf most things in general. This allows us to more easily support newer architectures and platforms. There is a significant build speed benefit from not autoreconf'ing things but where do we draw the line? I'm also worried about patches which touch both configure and configure.ac since the timestamp changes can cause things to autoreconf even when we're trying to avoid that. As such this is actually quite a risky change given past bad experiences :( I'm not completely against it but I am worried. Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#136747): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/136747 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/72553705/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
