Philip Craig wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The bridge-utils package is pretty old (0.9.6), so I looked into what > > it would take to upgrade (the latest is 1.2, see > > http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=26089). I > > encountered a problem building 1.2 (and posted a query to the bridge > > mail list), but had no problem porting bridge-utils-1.1 into the > > uClinux environment. The only "patch" to submit is the makefile that > > deals with running configure and the romfs target. > > > > I also downloaded the original 0.9.6, and discovered the uClinux-dist > > package contains several changes that I can't sort out. I suspect some > > changes are fix bugs, but other changes add or modify the original > > package's behavior ("brctl show ANY"). > > The changes I can see are: > > 1. Makefile changes to get it to build.
I attached a 'makefile' patch which runs autoconf and configure in order to create Makefile. Up through bridge-utils-1.1 they provided 'configure', but bridge-utils-1.2 expects you to create 'configure' using autoconf. This is according to a response I got from the developer to a question I posted on the bridge-utils mail list. You'll note CONFOPTS changed slightly, and I changed the romfs target to install the executable into /usr/sbin, which I believe is the typical installation directory. It's fine with me if you want to change this back to /bin. One thing to consider is the size of the executable seems to have jumped between 1.1 and 1.2. Here are the sizes when built for my uClinux i386 target: text data bss dec hex filename 12164 704 24 12892 325c bridge-utils/brctl/brctl 14110 440 28 14578 38f2 bridge-utils-1.1/brctl/brctl 17888 488 24 18400 47e0 bridge-utils-1.2/brctl/brctl This makefile works with versions 1.1 and 1.2, but if you use it for 1.1 the distclean target I created should be modified to NOT delete 'configure'. > > 2. Change 'brctl show' to take an argument, with 'brctl show ANY' giving > the old behaviour. This is just a way to show a single bridge. I don't > think the user interface to it matters. It would be more logical to just > make the bridge argument optional, rather than specifying ANY to show > them all. Or add a new command to show a single bridge. > > 3. Only call br_make_bridge_list() for 'brctl show'. This is a > performance enhancement for large numbers of bridges. > > 4. Allow 'brctl show' to show up to 1024 bridges, rather than 32. This > change may be buggy, the CVS comment says it still only displays 62. I > wonder if there is a way to make this handle any number. libbridge/libbridge_private.h defines MAX_BRIDGES and MAX_PORTS, both of which are set to 1024. > > > So what's the procedure for moving forward? Does this group know the > > history behind the uClinux changes, and whether current projects still > > rely on them? > > We want to keep these changes. No objections to cleaning them up though. > And we should submit them upstream this time (except for some of the > Makefile changes). If you only want to do the Makefile changes, that's > fine, we can sort the rest out. Excellent, thanks! > > > How do we trade off retaining old "enhancements" without > > becoming tied to old versions? I noticed uClinux-dist-test includes a > > new (2.4) pppd, and kept the old by providing pppd-2.3. Would a > > similar approach work for bridge-utils? > > Shouldn't need to keep the old version in this case. >
uclinux-bridge-utils-1.2.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
