| Message ID | 1342446352-31231-1-git-send-email-francois.perrad@gadz.org |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Headers | show |
Le Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:45:48 +0200, Francois Perrad <fperrad@gmail.com> a écrit : > BR2_PACKAGE_LUA_SHARED_LIBRARY is an option for install, not for build > --- > package/lua/lua.mk | 5 +---- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/package/lua/lua.mk b/package/lua/lua.mk > index baa459c..2fc838b 100644 > --- a/package/lua/lua.mk > +++ b/package/lua/lua.mk > @@ -8,10 +8,7 @@ LUA_VERSION = 5.1.5 > LUA_SITE = http://www.lua.org/ftp > LUA_INSTALL_STAGING = YES > > -ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_LUA_SHARED_LIBRARY),y) > - LUA_MYCFLAGS += -fPIC > -endif > - > +LUA_MYCFLAGS += -fPIC > LUA_MYLIBS += -ldl > > ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_LUA_INTERPRETER_READLINE),y) If Lua is not build as a shared library, there is no point in building the object files with the -fPIC argument, so the existing code seems to make sense to me. The BR2_PACKAGE_LUA_SHARED_LIBRARY affects both the build time (we don't build with -fPIC) and the install time (we install the shared libraries). But I'm confused: during the Libre Software Meeting, didn't we discussed that the BR2_PACKAGE_LUA_SHARED_LIBRARY option should go away, and that the BR2_PACKAGE_LUA option should unconditionally install the shared libraries, and then there would be sub-options for the interpreter and compiler? Thanks! Thomas
2012/7/16 Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>: > Le Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:45:48 +0200, > Francois Perrad <fperrad@gmail.com> a écrit : > >> BR2_PACKAGE_LUA_SHARED_LIBRARY is an option for install, not for build >> --- >> package/lua/lua.mk | 5 +---- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/package/lua/lua.mk b/package/lua/lua.mk >> index baa459c..2fc838b 100644 >> --- a/package/lua/lua.mk >> +++ b/package/lua/lua.mk >> @@ -8,10 +8,7 @@ LUA_VERSION = 5.1.5 >> LUA_SITE = http://www.lua.org/ftp >> LUA_INSTALL_STAGING = YES >> >> -ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_LUA_SHARED_LIBRARY),y) >> - LUA_MYCFLAGS += -fPIC >> -endif >> - >> +LUA_MYCFLAGS += -fPIC >> LUA_MYLIBS += -ldl >> >> ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_LUA_INTERPRETER_READLINE),y) > > If Lua is not build as a shared library, there is no point in building > the object files with the -fPIC argument, so the existing code seems to > make sense to me. The BR2_PACKAGE_LUA_SHARED_LIBRARY affects both the > build time (we don't build with -fPIC) and the install time (we install > the shared libraries). > > But I'm confused: during the Libre Software Meeting, didn't we discussed > that the BR2_PACKAGE_LUA_SHARED_LIBRARY option should go away, and that > the BR2_PACKAGE_LUA option should unconditionally install the shared > libraries, and then there would be sub-options for the interpreter and > compiler? > I want remove BR2_PACKAGE_LUA_SHARED_LIBRARY only in Lua modules, because it is an internal of the lua package, and Lua modules must be used with Lua or LuaJIT. see http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/162294/ François > Thanks! > > Thomas > -- > Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons > Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux > development, consulting, training and support. > http://free-electrons.com > _______________________________________________ > buildroot mailing list > buildroot@busybox.net > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
Le Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:35:15 +0200, François Perrad <francois.perrad@gadz.org> a écrit : > I want remove BR2_PACKAGE_LUA_SHARED_LIBRARY only in Lua modules, > because it is an internal of the lua package, and Lua modules must be > used with Lua or LuaJIT. > > see http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/162294/ Yes, you said that to me during the Libre Software Meeting, but this modification isn't part of the 5 patches patch set you have sent yesterday, so I was a bit confused. Can we have a complete patch set, with *all* your proposed changes to the Lua packaging? It's really complex to review patches for which you say that anyway such or such option is removed by a later patch, which is not in the same patch series. Thanks! Thomas
2012/7/17 Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>: > Le Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:35:15 +0200, > François Perrad <francois.perrad@gadz.org> a écrit : > >> I want remove BR2_PACKAGE_LUA_SHARED_LIBRARY only in Lua modules, >> because it is an internal of the lua package, and Lua modules must be >> used with Lua or LuaJIT. >> >> see http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/162294/ > > Yes, you said that to me during the Libre Software Meeting, but this > modification isn't part of the 5 patches patch set you have sent > yesterday, so I was a bit confused. > > Can we have a complete patch set, with *all* your proposed changes to > the Lua packaging? > > It's really complex to review patches for which you say that anyway > such or such option is removed by a later patch, which is not in the > same patch series. > There are 3 series of patches : a serie for luajit [1/2] luajit: new package work in progress [2/2] luajit: fix dependencies of Lua modules a serie for refactor lua [PATCH 1/5] lua : fix autobuild.buildroot [PATCH 2/5] lua : don't install static library in target [PATCH 3/5] lua : don't install shared library in staging [PATCH 4/5] lua : refactor with POST_PATH_HOOKS [PATCH 5/5] lua: split and rename patches trash them, only the last one deserves to be saved by a new version a new serie for refactor lua [PATCH 1/2] lua: split and rename patches v2 [PATCH 2/2] lua: refactor root path François > Thanks! > > Thomas > -- > Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons > Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux > development, consulting, training and support. > http://free-electrons.com
Le Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:46:32 +0200, François Perrad <francois.perrad@gadz.org> a écrit : > There are 3 series of patches : > > a serie for luajit > [1/2] luajit: new package > work in progress > [2/2] luajit: fix dependencies of Lua modules Ok, so I need to wait for both of these that you prepare a nice patch set that solves the bitness building problem for luajit. Correct? > a serie for refactor lua > [PATCH 1/5] lua : fix autobuild.buildroot > [PATCH 2/5] lua : don't install static library in target > [PATCH 3/5] lua : don't install shared library in staging > [PATCH 4/5] lua : refactor with POST_PATH_HOOKS > [PATCH 5/5] lua: split and rename patches > trash them, only the last one deserves to be saved by a new version Ok, so I ignore those 5 patches, correct? > a new serie for refactor lua > [PATCH 1/2] lua: split and rename patches v2 > [PATCH 2/2] lua: refactor root path Ok, I will merge them. Thanks, Thomas
2012/7/17 Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>: > Le Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:46:32 +0200, > François Perrad <francois.perrad@gadz.org> a écrit : > >> There are 3 series of patches : >> >> a serie for luajit >> [1/2] luajit: new package >> work in progress >> [2/2] luajit: fix dependencies of Lua modules > > Ok, so I need to wait for both of these that you prepare a nice patch > set that solves the bitness building problem for luajit. Correct? > as you suggest, I use (with success) the proposal of Jean-Christophe Plagnol-Villard (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/153235/) so now, in fact, I wait you integrate it. >> a serie for refactor lua >> [PATCH 1/5] lua : fix autobuild.buildroot >> [PATCH 2/5] lua : don't install static library in target >> [PATCH 3/5] lua : don't install shared library in staging >> [PATCH 4/5] lua : refactor with POST_PATH_HOOKS >> [PATCH 5/5] lua: split and rename patches >> trash them, only the last one deserves to be saved by a new version > > Ok, so I ignore those 5 patches, correct? ok > >> a new serie for refactor lua >> [PATCH 1/2] lua: split and rename patches v2 >> [PATCH 2/2] lua: refactor root path > > Ok, I will merge them. > > Thanks, > > Thomas > -- > Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons > Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux > development, consulting, training and support. > http://free-electrons.com
Le Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:20:58 +0200, François Perrad <francois.perrad@gadz.org> a écrit : > as you suggest, I use (with success) the proposal of Jean-Christophe > Plagnol-Villard > (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/153235/) > so now, in fact, I wait you integrate it. Please send a proper patch set with all the patches that are needed. If you want your changes to be integrated, they need to be easy to review and integrate. And for the moment, you're just sending multiple individual patches, hoping that someone will figure out which patch still makes sense, how the patches relate between each other, etc. I have applied your patches that rework the Lua interpreter patches, but for the luajit package, I'm waiting for a clean patch series from you in order to merge things. And when you send updated versions of your patches, please send a new complete series of patches. Thanks! Thomas
diff --git a/package/lua/lua.mk b/package/lua/lua.mk index baa459c..2fc838b 100644 --- a/package/lua/lua.mk +++ b/package/lua/lua.mk @@ -8,10 +8,7 @@ LUA_VERSION = 5.1.5 LUA_SITE = http://www.lua.org/ftp LUA_INSTALL_STAGING = YES -ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_LUA_SHARED_LIBRARY),y) - LUA_MYCFLAGS += -fPIC -endif - +LUA_MYCFLAGS += -fPIC LUA_MYLIBS += -ldl ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_LUA_INTERPRETER_READLINE),y)