On 6/30/13 11:02 AM, Philip Balister wrote:
On 06/30/2013 11:56 AM, Trevor Woerner wrote:
On 27 June 2013 10:08, Mark Hatle <mark.ha...@windriver.com> 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 <mark.ha...@windriver.com>
---
+
+ 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?
(Catching up on email after my vacation...)
That is the primary issue, can we even trust the host system to work well enough
to build a working version.
Second, there was recently a change to oe-core that got rid of all of the
"bootstrap" builds, in favor of the 'buildtools'. For anyone with an old or
broken system, they will need to download (or build) the buildtools.. install it
and have it in their path prior to running oe-core.
This will provide the basic set of python, tar, git, and make that is needed for
the build system.
On a "working" host, you can use bitbake buildtools-tarball to generate it.
--Mark
Philip
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
