From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.gw90.de ([188.40.100.199]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NU4jd-0006XZ-5g for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:50:08 +0100 Received: from f053034057.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.53.34.57] helo=[192.168.178.25]) by mail.gw90.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NU4hb-0007sU-6l for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:47:59 +0000 From: Paul Menzel To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org In-Reply-To: <20100110123923.GB6363@rhein.zuhause.netz> References: <1263109998.16109.11.camel@mattotaupa.wohnung.familie-menzel.net> <20100110123923.GB6363@rhein.zuhause.netz> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:47:57 +0100 Message-ID: <1263156477.3423.6.camel@mattotaupa.wohnung.familie-menzel.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.2 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 188.40.100.199 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on linuxtogo.org); Unknown failure Subject: Re: vdr: questions regarding cplusplus.patch X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:50:08 -0000 X-Groupsio-MsgNum: 15528 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-DZGDfiJyWh5/oZWNJgep" --=-DZGDfiJyWh5/oZWNJgep Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am Sonntag, den 10.01.2010, 13:39 +0100 schrieb Henning Heinold: > On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 08:53:18AM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote: > > packaging VDR for OE you added cplusplus.patch [1] to be applied. I am > > trying to get the patches upstream, but I have some questions. > >=20 > > Is it correct, that the two changes have the following goals? > >=20 > > 1. Instead of using the C headers which are deprecated use the headers > > provided by C++ as mentioned for example in [2]. > > 2. You changed `canonicalize_file_name(FileName);` to > > `realpath(FileName,NULL);`. Is that because OE just support Linux and > > not GNU/Hurd for example [3]? > > 3. I do not understand why a lot of headers are included in tools.h and > > tools.c. But I have to look that up in some reference. > > with gcc 4.x and 4.4 c++ is stricter at including headers the right way. > So you need to include a couple of headers, because some functions > are not found. You can test it in oe with using binutils 2.20 and > gcc-4.4.2 and leave the patches out. >=20 > The problem with canonicalize_file_name was, that the function too > wasn't found with gcc-4.4.2. So I googled and found that > canonicalize_file_name(FileName) is the same as realpath(FileName,NULL), > but realpath was found. >=20 > I hope this clears some stuff. Dear Henning, thank your for your explanation. I tried to reproduce that on my Debian Sid/unstable system with $ g++ --version g++ (Debian 4.4.2-8) 4.4.2 $ ld --version # binutils 2.20-4 GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.20 $ git clone git://git.gekrumbel.de/vdr.git $ cd vdr $ make and did not get any warnings. I will try to reproduce this in OE but have to read up on how to change the versions in my `local.conf`. Thanks, Paul --=-DZGDfiJyWh5/oZWNJgep Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAktKPP0ACgkQPX1aK2wOHVg4CgCeLV037MdG7LhIXShSV/0dE4Qu LhMAmwarDc7E+4yYsN39RWoSvIOt4p6O =9dA2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-DZGDfiJyWh5/oZWNJgep--