On 28.07.2010 15:44, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > Hello. > > 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 <[email protected]> >>> >>> 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? regards, morphis _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
