Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] Unable to find kernel module scx200_wdt.ko x86 target
Would it be possible to merge this patch in the svn since otherwise it is not possible to build openwrt for x86. Bye R. - Roberto Riggio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I apologize for the mess. I just wanted to send a patch compliant with your guidelines (the previous one was embedded in a reply). Signed-off-by: Roberto Riggio [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Index: package/kernel/modules/other.mk === --- package/kernel/modules/other.mk (revisione 10602) +++ package/kernel/modules/other.mk (copia locale) @@ -419,7 +419,7 @@ TITLE:=Natsemi SCX200 Watchdog support DEPENDS:[EMAIL PROTECTED] KCONFIG:=CONFIG_SC1200_WDT - FILES:=$(LINUX_DIR)/drivers/char/watchdog/scx200_wdt.$(LINUX_KMOD_SUFFIX) + FILES:=$(LINUX_DIR)/drivers/$(WATCHDOG_DIR)/scx200_wdt.$(LINUX_KMOD_SUFFIX) AUTOLOAD:=$(call AutoLoad,50,scx200_wdt) endef ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel -- Roberto Riggio, PhD Student CREATE-NET Via alla Cascata 56/C 38100 Trento (Italy) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] HomePage: http://disi.unitn.it/~riggio/ Tel: +39.0461.314.960 Fax: +39.0461.314.972 ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] Unable to find kernel module scx200_wdt.ko x86 target
Hi Roberto, Le jeudi 27 mars 2008, Roberto Riggio a écrit : Would it be possible to merge this patch in the svn since otherwise it is not possible to build openwrt for x86. Applied in [10672]. Thanks ! -- Best regards, Florian Fainelli Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openwrt.org --- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] upgrade fuse-2.7.1 to fuse-2.7.3 to fix breakage.
Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
i'm not sure why this patch wouldn't apply cleanly. it applies
perfectly cleanly against the latest git tree with patchlevel 1 on my
system. can anyone else verify this? thanks.
package/fuse/Makefile|4
package/fuse/patches/100-cross_compile.patch |7
package/fuse/patches/102-no_depmod.patch |7
package/fuse/patches/112-no_break_on_mknod.patch |8
package/fuse/patches/200-disable_compat.patch| 692 ++---
package/fuse/patches/300-2.6.24_fixes.patch | 246
6 files changed, 359 insertions(+), 605 deletions(-)
diff --git a/package/fuse/Makefile b/package/fuse/Makefile
index 8d280e1..2376eaa 100644
--- a/package/fuse/Makefile
+++ b/package/fuse/Makefile
@@ -10,12 +10,12 @@ include $(TOPDIR)/rules.mk
include $(INCLUDE_DIR)/kernel.mk
PKG_NAME:=fuse
-PKG_VERSION:=2.7.1
+PKG_VERSION:=2.7.3
PKG_RELEASE:=1
PKG_SOURCE:=$(PKG_NAME)-$(PKG_VERSION).tar.gz
PKG_SOURCE_URL:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/$(PKG_NAME)
-PKG_MD5SUM:=f95b4a238a3df5a92e9013ecb55c2c17
+PKG_MD5SUM:=98563fc7b265b7479a3178181cbcf59a
include $(INCLUDE_DIR)/package.mk
diff --git a/package/fuse/patches/100-cross_compile.patch
b/package/fuse/patches/100-cross_compile.patch
index 2ce83c4..54a4d59 100644
--- a/package/fuse/patches/100-cross_compile.patch
+++ b/package/fuse/patches/100-cross_compile.patch
@@ -1,7 +1,6 @@
-Index: fuse-2.6.5/kernel/configure
-===
fuse-2.6.5.orig/kernel/configure 2007-06-23 13:03:50.0 +0200
-+++ fuse-2.6.5/kernel/configure2007-06-23 13:03:50.0 +0200
+diff -Nru fuse-2.7.3.orig/kernel/configure fuse-2.7.3/kernel/configure
+--- fuse-2.7.3.orig/kernel/configure 2008-02-19 15:00:19.0 -0500
fuse-2.7.3/kernel/configure2008-03-17 14:10:14.0 -0400
@@ -1851,7 +1851,9 @@
{ echo $as_me:$LINENO: checking kernel source version 5
diff --git a/package/fuse/patches/102-no_depmod.patch
b/package/fuse/patches/102-no_depmod.patch
index 899d307..ee86942 100644
--- a/package/fuse/patches/102-no_depmod.patch
+++ b/package/fuse/patches/102-no_depmod.patch
@@ -1,7 +1,6 @@
-Index: fuse-2.6.5/kernel/Makefile.in
-===
fuse-2.6.5.orig/kernel/Makefile.in 2007-06-23 13:03:50.0 +0200
-+++ fuse-2.6.5/kernel/Makefile.in 2007-06-23 13:03:50.0 +0200
+diff -Nru fuse-2.7.3.orig/kernel/Makefile.in fuse-2.7.3/kernel/Makefile.in
+--- fuse-2.7.3.orig/kernel/Makefile.in 2006-12-09 13:51:13.0 -0500
fuse-2.7.3/kernel/Makefile.in 2008-03-17 14:12:32.0 -0400
@@ -25,11 +25,9 @@
install-y: all
$(mkdir_p) $(DESTDIR)$(fusemoduledir)
diff --git a/package/fuse/patches/112-no_break_on_mknod.patch
b/package/fuse/patches/112-no_break_on_mknod.patch
index 93e3242..911d25c 100644
--- a/package/fuse/patches/112-no_break_on_mknod.patch
+++ b/package/fuse/patches/112-no_break_on_mknod.patch
@@ -1,8 +1,6 @@
-Index: fuse-2.6.5/util/Makefile.in
-===
fuse-2.6.5.orig/util/Makefile.in 2007-06-23 13:03:50.0 +0200
-+++ fuse-2.6.5/util/Makefile.in2007-06-23 13:03:50.0 +0200
-@@ -489,7 +489,7 @@
+--- fuse-2.7.3.orig/util/Makefile.in 2008-02-19 15:00:55.0 -0500
fuse-2.7.3/util/Makefile.in2008-03-17 14:14:10.0 -0400
+@@ -528,7 +528,7 @@
install-exec-hook:
-chown root $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/fusermount
-chmod u+s $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/fusermount
diff --git a/package/fuse/patches/200-disable_compat.patch
b/package/fuse/patches/200-disable_compat.patch
index d4bb978..12203d3 100644
--- a/package/fuse/patches/200-disable_compat.patch
+++ b/package/fuse/patches/200-disable_compat.patch
@@ -1,25 +1,22 @@
-Index: fuse-2.7.1/include/fuse_common_compat.h
-===
fuse-2.7.1.orig/include/fuse_common_compat.h 2007-10-20
17:13:51.409738304 +0200
-+++ fuse-2.7.1/include/fuse_common_compat.h2007-10-20 17:14:26.323727941
+0200
+diff -Nru fuse-2.7.3.orig/include/fuse_common_compat.h
fuse-2.7.3/include/fuse_common_compat.h
+--- fuse-2.7.3.orig/include/fuse_common_compat.h 2008-02-19
14:51:23.0 -0500
fuse-2.7.3/include/fuse_common_compat.h2008-03-17 14:55:01.0
-0400
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
- unsigned int keep_cache : 1;
+ unsigned int keep_cache : 1;
};
+#ifndef DISABLE_COMPAT
int fuse_mount_compat25(const char *mountpoint, struct fuse_args *args);
int fuse_mount_compat22(const char *mountpoint, const char *opts);
-@@ -24,4 +25,4 @@
+@@ -24,3 +25,4 @@
int fuse_mount_compat1(const char *mountpoint, const char *args[]);
void fuse_unmount_compat22(const char *mountpoint);
--
+#endif
-Index: fuse-2.7.1/lib/fuse.c
[OpenWrt-Devel] any progress on using installed host tools?
a while back, i proposed having the build check if any of the already-installed host tools were suitable so that you didn't have to download and build them -- sed being the perfect example since almost everyone has a relatively recent sed on their system. has anyone done anything along those lines yet? rday -- Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry: Have classroom, will lecture. http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
[OpenWrt-Devel] any problems with bumping up the toolchain versions?
is there any inherent difficulty in bumping up the software versions of the toolchain components? say, binutils to 2.18 and gcc to 4.2.3? i realize you can always do that *manually* but if those values are the *defaults*, it's more likely that people will use them and will identify build problems if they exist. i think it's more valuable to push the toolchain along, just so if there are issues hiding in the newer versions, they're identified as quickly as possible. rday -- Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry: Have classroom, will lecture. http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
[OpenWrt-Devel] Libsamplerate not building - autoconfig version mismatch
I am getting an automake version mismatch when compiling libsamplerate. This worked for me: define Build/Compile pushd $(PKG_BUILD_DIR) aclocal automake popd . I can make that an official patch if you would like. //.ichael Geddes ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] any problems with bumping up the toolchain versions?
On 2008.03.27. 23:03:59 Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: is there any inherent difficulty in bumping up the software versions of the toolchain components? say, binutils to 2.18 and gcc to 4.2.3? i realize you can always do that *manually* but if those values are the *defaults*, it's more likely that people will use them and will identify build problems if they exist. i think it's more valuable to push the toolchain along, just so if there are issues hiding in the newer versions, they're identified as quickly as possible. The reason why we stick to 4.1.2 is simply the fact that it compiles good code. 4.2 is broken on ARM, misscompiles some stuff on x86, not to mention that probably noone tested all platforms out there. We slowly bumb toolchain versions when the toolchain is known to work nicely for some time for a developer. Imre ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] any problems with bumping up the toolchain versions?
On 2008.03.27. 23:37:47 Luigi 'Comio' Mantellini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Ok. Anyway the compiler gcc4.3 supports a lot new cpus (like the coldfire) :) opening new development horizons. Sure, as AVR32 uses gcc 4.2.3.. Some targets work better with newer compilers, others do not. Spice this is up with uClibc, and you have fun everytime you play with toolchain combinations ;) rday already sent a preliminary 4.3 patch top the list, if you volunteer to fix it up, we are happy to add it :) Same goes for your platform :) Imre ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] any problems with bumping up the toolchain versions?
On gio, 2008-03-27 at 23:42 +0100, Imre Kaloz wrote:
On 2008.03.27. 23:37:47 Luigi 'Comio' Mantellini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Ok. Anyway the compiler gcc4.3 supports a lot new cpus (like the
coldfire) :) opening new development horizons.
Sure, as AVR32 uses gcc 4.2.3.. Some targets work better with newer
compilers, others do not. Spice this is up with uClibc, and you have
fun everytime you play with toolchain combinations ;)
rday already sent a preliminary 4.3 patch top the list, if you volunteer
to fix it up, we are happy to add it :) Same goes for your platform :)
I tried the patchset from RDAY without success :S I don't know why, but
the file libgcc.a is not found and the uClibc compilation fails.
Imre
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
--
__ Luigi Mantellini
.'__'. RD - Software
(.' '.)Industrie Dial Face S.p.A.
( :==: )Via Canzo, 4
('.__.')20068 Peschiera Borromeo (MI), Italy
'.__.' Tel.: +39 02 5167 2813
Fax: +39 02 5167 2459
Ind. Dial Face Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.idf-hit.com GPG fingerprint: 3DD1 7B71 FBDF 6376 1B4A
B003 175F E979 907E 1650
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
