On 30 June 2013 12:02, Philip Balister <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/30/2013 11:56 AM, Trevor Woerner wrote: >> On 27 June 2013 10:08, Mark Hatle <[email protected]> wrote: >>> See GNU Savannah bug 30612 -- make 3.82 is known to be broken. >>> >>> A number of vendors are providing a modified version, so checking >>> for just the version string is not enough. We also need to check >>> if the patch for the issue has been applied. We use a modified >>> version of the reproduced to check for the issue. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mark Hatle <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> + >>> + if status != 0: >>> + return "Your version of make 3.82 is broken. Please revert to >>> 3.81 or install a patched version.\n" >> >> >> Instead of returning an error and asking the user to manually update >> their own 'make', wouldn't it be better if bitbake simply built its >> own known-to-be-working -native version instead? In this way a good, >> working version of 'make' could be installed in a potential SDK's >> sysroot as well? > > Is the broken version good enough to build a working version?
In my case that's what I did (i.e. I used make-3.82 to build and install early in my $PATH make-3.81). I was then able to bitbake again which went to completion successfully. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
