On 02/27/2013 08:45 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 20:32 -0800, Saul Wold wrote:
On 02/27/2013 07:00 AM, tom.zanu...@linux.intel.com wrote:
From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanu...@linux.intel.com>
Add libaudit, used by system call auditing applications. From the
sources:
"The audit package contains the user space utilities for storing and
searching the audit records generate by the audit subsystem in the
Linux 2.6 kernel."
Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanu...@linux.intel.com>
---
.../libaudit/libaudit/build-lib-only.patch | 33 ++
.../libaudit/libaudit/fix-host-gen.patch | 461
+++++++++++++++++++++
meta/recipes-support/libaudit/libaudit_2.2.2.bb | 25 ++
3 files changed, 519 insertions(+)
create mode 100644
meta/recipes-support/libaudit/libaudit/build-lib-only.patch
create mode 100644 meta/recipes-support/libaudit/libaudit/fix-host-gen.patch
create mode 100644 meta/recipes-support/libaudit/libaudit_2.2.2.bb
<SNIP>
diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/libaudit/libaudit_2.2.2.bb
b/meta/recipes-support/libaudit/libaudit_2.2.2.bb
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e28b619
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-support/libaudit/libaudit_2.2.2.bb
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+DESCRIPTION = "libaudit is the dynamic library needed for applications to use the
audit framework."
+SECTION = "libs"
+AUTHOR = "Steve Grubb <sgr...@redhat.com>"
+HOMEPAGE = "http://people.redhat.com/sgrubb/audit/";
+LICENSE = "LGPLv2+"
+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=94d55d512a9ba36caa9b7df079bae19f"
+PR = "r0"
+
+SRC_URI = "http://people.redhat.com/sgrubb/audit/audit-${PV}.tar.gz \
+ file://build-lib-only.patch \
+ file://fix-host-gen.patch \
+ "
+
+SRC_URI[md5sum] = "6641fde111cf5dfda6d4282ab8410df5"
+SRC_URI[sha256sum] =
"8bc2b45a5f08f5df6cebcd5543f24b7e68e28b64da4b23f08de2c6616384302b"
+
+S = "${WORKDIR}/audit-${PV}"
+
+inherit autotools
+
+EXTRA_OECONF = "--disable-dependency-tracking --disable-listener"
+
+do_configure() {
+ oe_runconf
+}
Is this do_configure really needed? Does the autotools default not work
correctly? And if not why not?
This is to avoid the autoreconf step, which ends up overwriting the
lib/Makefile.in changes when it regenerates it from lib/Makefile.am.
The Makefile.in is shipped with the source tarball, so I modified it
directly instead of complicating things by trying to get autoreconf to
generate the correct Makefile for the target part of the build vs these
specific changes to Makefile.in for the set of programs generated to run
on the host.
Tom,
I understand your approach here and while it has good intentions, is not
the right way to go about this. We want to enable upstream packages to
cross compile (if they are open to the idea). So changing the
Makefile.am would be the right way to do this and allow the standard
automake and autoreconf to do their work. This would also allow the
patches to be possibly accepted up stream.
I understand there are examples of this type of patching in OE-Core,
that does not mean they are good examples and they should probably be
looked into for fixing also.
I know you have put effort in here, and we want to make sure the patches
are correct and good example moving forward.
For example in the first build-lib-only patch you can just edit the
SUBDIRS line to include lib.
For the larger patch, are you selectively changing CCLD and CFLAGS or is
it through out? You should probably build these -native and use them
instead of trying to tweak around the target build.
We can discuss it further as needed.
Thanks
Sau!
Tom
Sau!
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
