From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gustavo Zacarias Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:19:14 -0300 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2] linux: add conditional patch for timeconst.pl In-Reply-To: <56BA718A.5060500@mind.be> References: <1454852508-27544-1-git-send-email-gustavo.zacarias@free-electrons.com> <56BA718A.5060500@mind.be> Message-ID: <56BA73F2.7080009@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 09/02/16 20:08, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > and debian testing (stretch) and unstable (sid). > > As Thomas said, it's dirty, but we really need this. Hi Arnout. Yes, i couldn't figure out a cleaner way to do this, continues below... > The only reason to use APPLY_PATCHES is that it updates .applied_patches_list, > right? In that case, perhaps it's better to do that directly here. So instead of > a dry-run, just apply the patch right away, and if it succeeds add it to > .applied_patches_list. I could have probed the timeconst.pl file presence and relevancy (if it contains defined(@array)...), but then a dry-run patch does that for me just fine with the proper parameters. Yes, that's the reason for APPLY_PATCHES, however since it's already there why bother duplicating code? Also thought of extending apply-patches.sh to add an option for try-do/discard, but i believe it's a double-edged sword and not worth it quite yet. > This is a patch that we probably _do_ want to apply even in case of > OVERRIDE_SRCDIR. So maybe add it to LINUX_PRE_CONFIGURE_HOOKS instead. Even > though that's even more of a hack (and conflicts with the out-of-tree build > support). Possibly, let's hear other people thoughts on this. Regards.