[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openembedded-core
Subject:    [OE-core] [PATCH 1/3 v2] sanity.bbclass: Check for the known broken version of make
From:       trevor.woerner () linaro ! org (Trevor Woerner)
Date:       2013-06-30 22:55:41
Message-ID: CALmOhgnm7_D0U845bJyxWx=NvrhX-TAYugxwSUt9R8MSM7BB6w () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 30 June 2013 12:02, Philip Balister <philip at balister.org> wrote:
> On 06/30/2013 11:56 AM, Trevor Woerner wrote:
> > On 27 June 2013 10:08, Mark Hatle <mark.hatle at windriver.com> wrote:
> > > See GNU Savannah bug 30612 -- make 3.82 is known to be broken.
> > > 
> > > A number of vendors are providing a modified version, so checking
> > > for just the version string is not enough.  We also need to check
> > > if the patch for the issue has been applied.  We use a modified
> > > version of the reproduced to check for the issue.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Mark Hatle <mark.hatle at windriver.com>
> > > ---
> > > +
> > > +        if status != 0:
> > > +            return "Your version of make 3.82 is broken. Please revert to 3.81 \
> > > or install a patched version.\n"
> > 
> > 
> > Instead of returning an error and asking the user to manually update
> > their own 'make', wouldn't it be better if bitbake simply built its
> > own known-to-be-working -native version instead? In this way a good,
> > working version of 'make' could be installed in a potential SDK's
> > sysroot as well?
> 
> Is the broken version good enough to build a working version?


In my case that's what I did (i.e. I used make-3.82 to build and
install early in my $PATH make-3.81). I was then able to bitbake again
which went to completion successfully.


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]