[PATCH 1/2] rpm: update patch to support db-6.2.23

[PATCH 1/2] rpm: update patch to support db-6.2.23

[Maxin B. John]

Refresh the rpm-db60.patch to support db-6.2.23

Signed-off-by: Maxin B. John <maxin.john@intel.com>
---
 meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/rpm/rpm-db60.patch | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/rpm/rpm-db60.patch b/meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/rpm/rpm-db60.patch
index b4df8b7..403f3cb 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/rpm/rpm-db60.patch
+++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/rpm/rpm-db60.patch
@@ -13,11 +13,11 @@ Index: rpm/configure.ac
  [RPM_CHECK_LIB(
      [Berkeley-DB], [db],
 -    [db-6.1], [db_create], [db.h],
-+    [db-6.0], [db_create], [db.h],
++    [db-6.2], [db_create], [db.h],
      [yes,external], [db6],
      [ DBLIBSRCS="$DBLIBSRCS db3.c"
 -      DBXY=db61
-+      DBXY=db60
++      DBXY=db62
        AM_CONDITIONAL(WITH_DB, [ true ])
        AM_CONDITIONAL(WITH_DB_INTERNAL, [ test ".$RPM_CHECK_LIB_LOCATION" = .internal ])
        if test ".$RPM_CHECK_LIB_LOCATION" = .internal; then
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Index: rpm/configure.ac
  ])
  
 -if test ".$ac_cv_lib_db_6_1_db_create" != .yes -a ".$ac_cv_lib_db_5_3_db_create" != .yes; then
-+if test ".$ac_cv_lib_db_6_0_db_create" != .yes -a ".$ac_cv_lib_db_5_3_db_create" != .yes; then
++if test ".$ac_cv_lib_db_6_2_db_create" != .yes -a ".$ac_cv_lib_db_5_3_db_create" != .yes; then
      CPPFLAGS="${CPPFLAGS_save}"
  fi
  
@@ -36,12 +36,12 @@ Index: rpm/configure.ac
  
 -dnl # Sqlite 3.8.3.1 from db-6.1.19
 -if test ".$ac_cv_lib_db_6_1_db_create" = .yes; then
-+dnl # Sqlite 3.8.3.1 from db-6.0.30
-+if test ".$ac_cv_lib_db_6_0_db_create" = .yes; then
++dnl # Sqlite 3.8.3.1 from db-6.2.23
++if test ".$ac_cv_lib_db_6_2_db_create" = .yes; then
  RPM_CHECK_LIB(
      [Berkeley-DB (+SQLite3)], [dbsql],
 -    [db_sql-6.1], [sqlite3_open], [dbsql.h],
-+    [db_sql-6.0], [sqlite3_open], [dbsql.h],
++    [db_sql-6.2], [sqlite3_open], [dbsql.h],
      [yes,external], [db6/sql],
      [
        AM_CONDITIONAL(WITH_DBSQL, [ true ])
-- 
2.4.0

[PATCH 2/2] db: update to 6.2.23

[Maxin B. John]

6.0.30 -> 6.2.23

Disable atomicsupport as db fails to build with built-in atomic functions.

Signed-off-by: Maxin B. John <maxin.john@intel.com>
---
 meta/recipes-support/db/{db_6.0.30.bb => db_6.2.23.bb} | 17 +++--------------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
 rename meta/recipes-support/db/{db_6.0.30.bb => db_6.2.23.bb} (86%)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/db/db_6.0.30.bb b/meta/recipes-support/db/db_6.2.23.bb
similarity index 86%
rename from meta/recipes-support/db/db_6.0.30.bb
rename to meta/recipes-support/db/db_6.2.23.bb
index 50a469b..f53811e 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-support/db/db_6.0.30.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-support/db/db_6.2.23.bb
@@ -24,8 +24,8 @@ SRC_URI += "file://arm-thumb-mutex_db5.patch;patchdir=.. \
             file://Makefile-let-libdb-6.0.la-depend-os_map.l.patch;patchdir=.. \
            "
 
-SRC_URI[md5sum] = "ad28eb86ad3203b5422844db179c585b"
-SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "608e4b1cf390e9bf54c0ef00c5bd9ca76d36e2261b9f4d33d54516f3f6a20fd2"
+SRC_URI[md5sum] = "9da126afb937a48171ff1e569ce67cf1"
+SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "47612c8991aa9ac2f6be721267c8d3cdccf5ac83105df8e50809daea24e95dc7"
 
 # Exclude NC versions which lack AES encryption
 UPSTREAM_CHECK_REGEX = "db-(?P<pver>\d+\.\d+(\.\d+)?).tar"
@@ -70,21 +70,10 @@ FILES_SOLIBSDEV = "${libdir}/libdb.so ${libdir}/libdb_cxx.so"
 
 #configuration - set in local.conf to override
 # All the --disable-* options replace --enable-smallbuild, which breaks a bunch of stuff (eg. postfix)
-DB6_CONFIG ?= "--enable-o_direct --disable-cryptography --disable-queue --disable-replication --disable-verify --disable-compat185 --disable-sql"
+DB6_CONFIG ?= "--enable-o_direct --disable-cryptography --disable-queue --disable-replication --disable-verify --disable-compat185 --disable-sql --disable-atomicsupport"
 
 EXTRA_OECONF = "${DB6_CONFIG} --enable-shared --enable-cxx --with-sysroot"
 
-# Override the MUTEX setting here, the POSIX library is
-# the default - "POSIX/pthreads/library".
-# Don't ignore the nice SWP instruction on the ARM:
-# These enable the ARM assembler mutex code
-ARM_MUTEX = "--with-mutex=ARM/gcc-assembly"
-MUTEX = ""
-MUTEX_arm = "${ARM_MUTEX}"
-MUTEX_armeb = "${ARM_MUTEX}"
-EXTRA_OECONF += "${MUTEX}"
-EXTRA_OEMAKE_class-target = "LIBTOOL=${STAGING_BINDIR_CROSS}/${HOST_SYS}-libtool"
-
 # Cancel the site stuff - it's set for db3 and destroys the
 # configure.
 CONFIG_SITE = ""
-- 
2.4.0

Re: [PATCH 1/2] rpm: update patch to support db-6.2.23

[Mark Hatle]

On 6/3/16 6:39 AM, Maxin B. John wrote:
> Refresh the rpm-db60.patch to support db-6.2.23

NAK NAK NAK

Please do NOT merge this set.

6.2.23 does NOT work with the version of RPM.

They (BDB) changed something with the locking semantics.  If you do anything
more then a trivial test you will end up with a corrupted database.

The RPM5 community is working on a newer version of RPM5, that will likely adapt
to the new semantics.  I've not yet seen it released.  When it does, -and- if it
works w/ db 6.2.23, we can consider the upgrade at that time.

--Mark

> Signed-off-by: Maxin B. John <maxin.john@intel.com>
> ---
>  meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/rpm/rpm-db60.patch | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/rpm/rpm-db60.patch b/meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/rpm/rpm-db60.patch
> index b4df8b7..403f3cb 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/rpm/rpm-db60.patch
> +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/rpm/rpm-db60.patch
> @@ -13,11 +13,11 @@ Index: rpm/configure.ac
>   [RPM_CHECK_LIB(
>       [Berkeley-DB], [db],
>  -    [db-6.1], [db_create], [db.h],
> -+    [db-6.0], [db_create], [db.h],
> ++    [db-6.2], [db_create], [db.h],
>       [yes,external], [db6],
>       [ DBLIBSRCS="$DBLIBSRCS db3.c"
>  -      DBXY=db61
> -+      DBXY=db60
> ++      DBXY=db62
>         AM_CONDITIONAL(WITH_DB, [ true ])
>         AM_CONDITIONAL(WITH_DB_INTERNAL, [ test ".$RPM_CHECK_LIB_LOCATION" = .internal ])
>         if test ".$RPM_CHECK_LIB_LOCATION" = .internal; then
> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Index: rpm/configure.ac
>   ])
>   
>  -if test ".$ac_cv_lib_db_6_1_db_create" != .yes -a ".$ac_cv_lib_db_5_3_db_create" != .yes; then
> -+if test ".$ac_cv_lib_db_6_0_db_create" != .yes -a ".$ac_cv_lib_db_5_3_db_create" != .yes; then
> ++if test ".$ac_cv_lib_db_6_2_db_create" != .yes -a ".$ac_cv_lib_db_5_3_db_create" != .yes; then
>       CPPFLAGS="${CPPFLAGS_save}"
>   fi
>   
> @@ -36,12 +36,12 @@ Index: rpm/configure.ac
>   
>  -dnl # Sqlite 3.8.3.1 from db-6.1.19
>  -if test ".$ac_cv_lib_db_6_1_db_create" = .yes; then
> -+dnl # Sqlite 3.8.3.1 from db-6.0.30
> -+if test ".$ac_cv_lib_db_6_0_db_create" = .yes; then
> ++dnl # Sqlite 3.8.3.1 from db-6.2.23
> ++if test ".$ac_cv_lib_db_6_2_db_create" = .yes; then
>   RPM_CHECK_LIB(
>       [Berkeley-DB (+SQLite3)], [dbsql],
>  -    [db_sql-6.1], [sqlite3_open], [dbsql.h],
> -+    [db_sql-6.0], [sqlite3_open], [dbsql.h],
> ++    [db_sql-6.2], [sqlite3_open], [dbsql.h],
>       [yes,external], [db6/sql],
>       [
>         AM_CONDITIONAL(WITH_DBSQL, [ true ])
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/2] rpm: update patch to support db-6.2.23

[Mark Hatle]

On 6/3/16 2:33 PM, alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com wrote:
>> On 6/3/16 6:39 AM, Maxin B. John wrote:
>>> Refresh the rpm-db60.patch to support db-6.2.23
>>
>> NAK NAK NAK
>>
>> Please do NOT merge this set.
>>
>> 6.2.23 does NOT work with the version of RPM.
> 
> Should db be updated to the latest 6.1 release then?

Latest 6.1 release has the same problem unfortunately.  So it needs to wait as well.

> Generally, Mark, do you want to be the maintainer of db recipe? Since it
> is so tightly coupled with rpm, and is full of nontrivial issues like
> this, it makes sense that you take care of updating both.

I'm fine with moving BDB maintenance to me, and I'll try to keep them in sync
moving forward.. (for the most part they are decoupled, it was only recently
that things broke like this.)

--Mark

> Alex
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/2] rpm: update patch to support db-6.2.23

[Burton, Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 636 bytes --]

On 3 June 2016 at 19:53, Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com> wrote:

> On 6/3/16 2:33 PM, alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com wrote:
> >> On 6/3/16 6:39 AM, Maxin B. John wrote:
> >>> Refresh the rpm-db60.patch to support db-6.2.23
> >>
> >> NAK NAK NAK
> >>
> >> Please do NOT merge this set.
> >>
> >> 6.2.23 does NOT work with the version of RPM.
> >
> > Should db be updated to the latest 6.1 release then?
>
> Latest 6.1 release has the same problem unfortunately.  So it needs to
> wait as well.
>

They changed locking behaviour in a micro release?!

(more disappointed than surprised at this point)

Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1151 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] rpm: update patch to support db-6.2.23

[alexander.kanavin]

> On 6/3/16 6:39 AM, Maxin B. John wrote:
>> Refresh the rpm-db60.patch to support db-6.2.23
>
> NAK NAK NAK
>
> Please do NOT merge this set.
>
> 6.2.23 does NOT work with the version of RPM.

Should db be updated to the latest 6.1 release then?

Generally, Mark, do you want to be the maintainer of db recipe? Since it
is so tightly coupled with rpm, and is full of nontrivial issues like
this, it makes sense that you take care of updating both.

Alex

Re: [PATCH 1/2] rpm: update patch to support db-6.2.23

[Dan McGregor]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3247 bytes --]

On 3 Jun 2016 10:44 a.m., "Mark Hatle" <mark.hatle@windriver.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/3/16 6:39 AM, Maxin B. John wrote:
> > Refresh the rpm-db60.patch to support db-6.2.23
>
> NAK NAK NAK
>
> Please do NOT merge this set.
>
> 6.2.23 does NOT work with the version of RPM.
>
> They (BDB) changed something with the locking semantics.  If you do
anything
> more then a trivial test you will end up with a corrupted database.
>
> The RPM5 community is working on a newer version of RPM5, that will
likely adapt
> to the new semantics.  I've not yet seen it released.  When it does,
-and- if it
> works w/ db 6.2.23, we can consider the upgrade at that time.

Are they thinking of incorporating RPM4's new database format, or
continuing to use db?

I seem to recall hearing both options discussed, but that was a while ago
and on the rpm5 mailing list.

>
> --Mark
>
> > Signed-off-by: Maxin B. John <maxin.john@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/rpm/rpm-db60.patch | 12 ++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/rpm/rpm-db60.patch
b/meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/rpm/rpm-db60.patch
> > index b4df8b7..403f3cb 100644
> > --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/rpm/rpm-db60.patch
> > +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/rpm/rpm-db60.patch
> > @@ -13,11 +13,11 @@ Index: rpm/configure.ac
> >   [RPM_CHECK_LIB(
> >       [Berkeley-DB], [db],
> >  -    [db-6.1], [db_create], [db.h],
> > -+    [db-6.0], [db_create], [db.h],
> > ++    [db-6.2], [db_create], [db.h],
> >       [yes,external], [db6],
> >       [ DBLIBSRCS="$DBLIBSRCS db3.c"
> >  -      DBXY=db61
> > -+      DBXY=db60
> > ++      DBXY=db62
> >         AM_CONDITIONAL(WITH_DB, [ true ])
> >         AM_CONDITIONAL(WITH_DB_INTERNAL, [ test
".$RPM_CHECK_LIB_LOCATION" = .internal ])
> >         if test ".$RPM_CHECK_LIB_LOCATION" = .internal; then
> > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Index: rpm/configure.ac
> >   ])
> >
> >  -if test ".$ac_cv_lib_db_6_1_db_create" != .yes -a
".$ac_cv_lib_db_5_3_db_create" != .yes; then
> > -+if test ".$ac_cv_lib_db_6_0_db_create" != .yes -a
".$ac_cv_lib_db_5_3_db_create" != .yes; then
> > ++if test ".$ac_cv_lib_db_6_2_db_create" != .yes -a
".$ac_cv_lib_db_5_3_db_create" != .yes; then
> >       CPPFLAGS="${CPPFLAGS_save}"
> >   fi
> >
> > @@ -36,12 +36,12 @@ Index: rpm/configure.ac
> >
> >  -dnl # Sqlite 3.8.3.1 from db-6.1.19
> >  -if test ".$ac_cv_lib_db_6_1_db_create" = .yes; then
> > -+dnl # Sqlite 3.8.3.1 from db-6.0.30
> > -+if test ".$ac_cv_lib_db_6_0_db_create" = .yes; then
> > ++dnl # Sqlite 3.8.3.1 from db-6.2.23
> > ++if test ".$ac_cv_lib_db_6_2_db_create" = .yes; then
> >   RPM_CHECK_LIB(
> >       [Berkeley-DB (+SQLite3)], [dbsql],
> >  -    [db_sql-6.1], [sqlite3_open], [dbsql.h],
> > -+    [db_sql-6.0], [sqlite3_open], [dbsql.h],
> > ++    [db_sql-6.2], [sqlite3_open], [dbsql.h],
> >       [yes,external], [db6/sql],
> >       [
> >         AM_CONDITIONAL(WITH_DBSQL, [ true ])
> >
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4554 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] rpm: update patch to support db-6.2.23

[Maxin B. John]

Hi,

> On 6/3/16 2:33 PM, alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com wrote:
> >> On 6/3/16 6:39 AM, Maxin B. John wrote:
> >>> Refresh the rpm-db60.patch to support db-6.2.23
> >>
> >> NAK NAK NAK
> >>
> >> Please do NOT merge this set.
> >>
> >> 6.2.23 does NOT work with the version of RPM.
> > 
> > Should db be updated to the latest 6.1 release then?
> 
> Latest 6.1 release has the same problem unfortunately.  So it needs to wait as well.
> 
> > Generally, Mark, do you want to be the maintainer of db recipe? Since it
> > is so tightly coupled with rpm, and is full of nontrivial issues like
> > this, it makes sense that you take care of updating both.

Agree with Alex here. As it is coupled with rpm, it makes more sense to have
the same maintainer for both these packages.

> I'm fine with moving BDB maintenance to me, and I'll try to keep them in sync
> moving forward.. (for the most part they are decoupled, it was only recently
> that things broke like this.)

Mark, thanks a lot !

> --Mark
> 
> > Alex
> > 

Best Regards,
Maxin