[PATCH] boost-1.33.1: Corrected GNU_HASH error.

[PATCH] boost-1.33.1: Corrected GNU_HASH error.

[Przemyslaw Wesolek]

Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Wesolek <przemyslaw.wesolek@cs.put.poznan.pl>
---
 recipes/boost/boost.inc       |    3 +++
 recipes/boost/boost_1.33.1.bb |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/recipes/boost/boost.inc b/recipes/boost/boost.inc
index 80635b0..8b38a5e 100644
--- a/recipes/boost/boost.inc
+++ b/recipes/boost/boost.inc
@@ -77,6 +77,9 @@ FILES_${PN}-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/libboost_*.so ${libdir}/libboost_*.a"
 PACKAGES += "${PN}"
 RRECOMMENDS_${PN} += "${BOOSTLIBS}"
 
+# to avoid GNU_HASH QA errors added LDFLAGS to ARCH; a little bit dirty but at least it works
+TARGET_CC_ARCH += " ${LDFLAGS}" 
+
 # Oh yippee, a new build system, it's sooo cooool I could eat my own
 # foot.  inlining=on lets the compiler choose, I think.  At least this
 # stuff is documented...
diff --git a/recipes/boost/boost_1.33.1.bb b/recipes/boost/boost_1.33.1.bb
index 4d8e77d..689c681 100644
--- a/recipes/boost/boost_1.33.1.bb
+++ b/recipes/boost/boost_1.33.1.bb
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 include boost.inc
-PR = "r4"
+PR = "r5"
 
 SRC_URI = "\
   ${SOURCEFORGE_MIRROR}/boost/${BOOST_P}.tar.bz2 \
-- 
1.6.3.3

Re: [PATCH] boost-1.33.1: Corrected GNU_HASH error.

[Holger Hans Peter Freyther]

On Thursday 05 November 2009 14:24:24 you wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Wesolek <przemyslaw.wesolek@cs.put.poznan.pl>

Looks good. but if you change a .inc file you need to bump the PR of
every user. In this case it makes sense to convert it to the file pr scheme.

kind regards
	holger

Re: [PATCH] boost-1.33.1: Corrected GNU_HASH error.

[Henning Heinold]

Hi,

thanks for the patch, but I wonder who is using this older version. Mainly 1.3.36 is used.
I prefer and started to fix the apps in oe which are using boost, to get working with 1.4 and
would be much help if more people joins at this. So in the end we can remove all the 1.3 boost recipe.

Bye Henning

[PATCH] boost-1.33.1: Corrected GNU_HASH QA error.

[Przemyslaw Wesolek]

boost 1.33.1 recipe ignores LDFLAGS set by OE, including --hash-style.
In result package_qa task issues error.

This patch fixes the recipe by appending OE's specifics to compiler
flags.

This only affects 1.33, as newer versions of boost don't use boost.inc.

Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Wesolek <przemyslaw.wesolek@cs.put.poznan.pl>
---
 recipes/boost/boost.inc       |    3 +++
 recipes/boost/boost_1.33.1.bb |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/recipes/boost/boost.inc b/recipes/boost/boost.inc
index 80635b0..8b38a5e 100644
--- a/recipes/boost/boost.inc
+++ b/recipes/boost/boost.inc
@@ -77,6 +77,9 @@ FILES_${PN}-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/libboost_*.so ${libdir}/libboost_*.a"
 PACKAGES += "${PN}"
 RRECOMMENDS_${PN} += "${BOOSTLIBS}"
 
+# to avoid GNU_HASH QA errors added LDFLAGS to ARCH; a little bit dirty but at least it works
+TARGET_CC_ARCH += " ${LDFLAGS}" 
+
 # Oh yippee, a new build system, it's sooo cooool I could eat my own
 # foot.  inlining=on lets the compiler choose, I think.  At least this
 # stuff is documented...
diff --git a/recipes/boost/boost_1.33.1.bb b/recipes/boost/boost_1.33.1.bb
index 4d8e77d..689c681 100644
--- a/recipes/boost/boost_1.33.1.bb
+++ b/recipes/boost/boost_1.33.1.bb
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 include boost.inc
-PR = "r4"
+PR = "r5"
 
 SRC_URI = "\
   ${SOURCEFORGE_MIRROR}/boost/${BOOST_P}.tar.bz2 \
-- 
1.6.3.3

Re: [PATCH] boost-1.33.1: Corrected GNU_HASH error.

[Przemyslaw Wesolek]

Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> On Thursday 05 November 2009 14:24:24 you wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Wesolek <przemyslaw.wesolek@cs.put.poznan.pl>
> 
> Looks good. but if you change a .inc file you need to bump the PR of
> every user.

1.33 is the only user.

> In this case it makes sense to convert it to the file pr scheme.
> 

What is that? I see neither FILE_PR nor INC_PR -- which was mentioned on
IRC -- in OE manual.

Przemek

Re: [PATCH] boost-1.33.1: Corrected GNU_HASH error.

[Przemyslaw Wesolek]

Henning Heinold wrote:
> thanks for the patch, but I wonder who is using this older version. Mainly 1.3.36 is used.

Did you mean 1.36?

I agree, the older versions look like unmaintained for a long time.

> I prefer and started to fix the apps in oe which are using boost, to get working with 1.4 and
> would be much help if more people joins at this. So in the end we can remove all the 1.3 boost recipe.

Well... this is much up to the deprecation policy. I don't know the
policy for OE regarding deprecation, but common sense suggests removal
when nobody uses -- or at least, when nobody will be surprised.

For me this would be e.g. acceptable in dev branch when announced
appropriately earlier. In stable... I'd restrain from removing anything
harmless.

I aim for 1.40, too, but feeling no pressure I postponed it, as it looks
time consuming (for me, at least).

Przemek

Re: [PATCH] boost-1.33.1: Corrected GNU_HASH QA error.

[Przemyslaw Wesolek]

Sorry for multiple re-sends, I was being taught by Holger on correct
commit messages. :)

Przemek

Re: [PATCH] boost-1.33.1: Corrected GNU_HASH error.

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Przemyslaw Wesolek wrote:

> Henning Heinold wrote:
> > thanks for the patch, but I wonder who is using this older
> > version. Mainly 1.3.36 is used.
>
> Did you mean 1.36?
>
> I agree, the older versions look like unmaintained for a long time.

  if you go to boost's home page, they don't even *list* versions
earlier than 1.36:

  http://www.boost.org/users/news/

that's generally a good indication that it's time to start
deprecating.  and there's already a beta version of 1.41.

rday
--

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                               Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

            Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.

Web page:                                          http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: [PATCH] boost-1.33.1: Corrected GNU_HASH QA error.

[Przemyslaw Wesolek]

Can I ask for commit?

Przemek

Re: [PATCH] boost-1.33.1: Corrected GNU_HASH QA error.

[Leon Woestenberg]

Hello,

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Przemyslaw Wesolek
<przemyslaw.wesolek@cs.put.poznan.pl> wrote:
> boost 1.33.1 recipe ignores LDFLAGS set by OE, including --hash-style.
> In result package_qa task issues error.
>
> This patch fixes the recipe by appending OE's specifics to compiler
> flags.
>
> This only affects 1.33, as newer versions of boost don't use boost.inc.
>
> Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Wesolek <przemyslaw.wesolek@cs.put.poznan.pl>
> ---
>  recipes/boost/boost.inc       |    3 +++
>  recipes/boost/boost_1.33.1.bb |    2 +-
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
Seems OK to me.

Acked-by: Leon Woestenberg <leon@sidebranch.com>

-- 
Leon

Re: [PATCH] boost-1.33.1: Corrected GNU_HASH error.

[Przemyslaw Wesolek]

Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Przemyslaw Wesolek wrote:
> 
>> Henning Heinold wrote:
>>> thanks for the patch, but I wonder who is using this older
>>> version. Mainly 1.3.36 is used.
>> Did you mean 1.36?
>>
>> I agree, the older versions look like unmaintained for a long time.
> 
>   if you go to boost's home page, they don't even *list* versions
> earlier than 1.36:
> 
>   http://www.boost.org/users/news/
> 

They do, but as 1.33 is not news anymore ;) it appears on history page:

  http://www.boost.org/users/history/

Przemek

Re: [PATCH] boost-1.33.1: Corrected GNU_HASH error.

[Philip Balister]

On 11/05/2009 10:17 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Przemyslaw Wesolek wrote:
>
>> Henning Heinold wrote:
>>> thanks for the patch, but I wonder who is using this older
>>> version. Mainly 1.3.36 is used.
>>
>> Did you mean 1.36?
>>
>> I agree, the older versions look like unmaintained for a long time.
>
>    if you go to boost's home page, they don't even *list* versions
> earlier than 1.36:
>
>    http://www.boost.org/users/news/
>
> that's generally a good indication that it's time to start
> deprecating.  and there's already a beta version of 1.41.

unfortunately the boost api is not very stable, so upgrading is not 
painless ....

Philip

>
> rday
> --
>
> ========================================================================
> Robert P. J. Day                               Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
>
>              Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.
>
> Web page:                                          http://crashcourse.ca
> Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
> ========================================================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>