[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Ltib] Setting new package options and dependencies
From: |
Stuart Hughes |
Subject: |
Re: [Ltib] Setting new package options and dependencies |
Date: |
Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:27:41 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080707) |
Hi Franz,
Thanks for the explanation. What I would like is 2 things:
1. A unified diff (diff -u) of your LTIB changes against the current
Savannah CVS head (or as close to it as you can). This will show me
changes and additions, I would expect:
* modified pkg_map, packages.lkc
* added libwebcam.spec file
2. Your patche(s) to libwebcam against some pristine release tarball/zip
etc. All .spec files should be pristine baseline + patche(s)
The idea of the pristine+patches means that if a new release release of
libwebcam is made, someone else can "see" what you had to change to make
it cross compile. If you can split out your changes to a set of
patches, 1 per topic change (e.g cross compile fixes, C99 fixes, etc)
that is even more helpful.
So please sent 1 & 2. Also, can you send me a URL of where you got the
pristine tarball referenced in the .spec file. This way you don't need
to send that, only your patches against it.
I think it may be worth sending 1 first and letting me see how it looks,
in case I see something that needs fixing. This would save both of us time.
Regards, Stuart
Franz Trierweiler wrote:
> Hi Stuart,
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> Just to be clear enough, let me tell you the whole story before I ask
> you a question (sorry to make assumptions once again before asking):
> The Logitech webcam-tools (libs and apps) are a "cmake"-style
> project, which is a pain to configure for cross compiling. Logitech
> chose this, mostly because that's convenient for native compilation
> (they can release the source for XCode, Visual Studio, Eclipse, and
> so on, cmake can prepare the accurate project files) which is 99% of
> use cases I think. After a few hours of setting and minor fixes (not
> ARM-dependant but C99 syntax unsupported by the toolchain) on the
> code, I finally got libs and apps cross-compiled and finished the
> installation by hand on my FS board. I then noticed that the lib
> crashed and found out on Logitech forums that the source code made
> assumptions on how data were aligned, and someone proposed a fix for
> ARM. I fixed the code and finally got something run fine. I then
> decided to prepare a RPM of this and made the decision of getting rid
> of cmake by preparing myself the Makefiles. Indeed, as explained
> above keeping a cmake style project would have been a pain. Thus, now
> we are there with a kind of libwebcam 1.0 for ARM.
>
> I can prepare a diff which hilights ARM differences *only* and that
> would enable to have a generic base, patchable for any platform. Of
> course, we assume that the base project is the "traditional" (not
> cmake) project I have just prepared. Is-that what you really expect?
> Please confirm and I am ready to contribute of course.
>
> Regards, Franz
>
> Le 16 juin 2010 à 20:43, Stuart Hughes a écrit :
>
>> Hi Franz,
>>
>> The best thing to do is to submit a patch showing your changes,
>> including the new .spec file, that way I can comment more
>> intelligently, including the pkg_map/packages.lkc issue (does your
>> package not show up if you run ./ltib -m config).
>>
>> Also, you would not be on the hook to maintain this for all
>> architectures. If there's a chance that this package could be
>> used/ported to other platforms, then the .spec file should be made
>> with that in mind (e.g. don't hardwire ARCH=arm, use the generic
>> way). To avoid problems before this happens, you can put
>> conditions into the .spec file (my preference), such as:
>>
>>
>> case "$PLATFORM" in imx31ads) SOCKDRV=mx31ads-pcmcia ;; *) echo
>> "Error platform not supported" exit 1 ;; esac
>>
>> See qtopia,spec/pcmciautils.spec for examples.
>>
>> So far as putting in a particular grouping, do a find config | grep
>> 'something_in_this_group' and this should reveal the
>> packages.lkc/pkg_map files that controls this. The likely places
>> are: config/userspace/* and config/platform/*. However, I would if
>> possible try to keep common. Again, please send a complete patch
>> so I can 'see' what the situation is.
>>
>> Regards, Stuart
>>
>> Franz TRIERWEILER wrote:
>>> Hi Stuart,
>>>
>>> My port of webcam-tools is finished. It includes slight
>>> modifications to support ARM specific data alignment. I turned it
>>> into a rpm package and the whole rpm process works fine: - prep -
>>> scbuild - scinstall - scdeploy
>>>
>>> Since it is an ARM specific package (I cannot maintain it for
>>> several platforms since I only own i.MX25 Freescale 3-stack
>>> boards), I decided this would really become an ARM-specific
>>> package. I do not have the pretention of maintining it for all
>>> platforms supported by LTIB.
>>>
>>> I have several questions regarding how to integrate it into LTIB.
>>>
>>>
>>> Q1: I tried to get it included into my LTIB system to have it as
>>> a selectable package through the user interface. I modified
>>> packages.lkc as explained in the LTIB faq and added an entry in
>>> pkg_map. No way, I cannot see it it in the LTIB interface. Is
>>> there something I missed ?
>>>
>>> Q2: I would like to specify that this package depends on: - ARM
>>> arch - V4Linux - UVC - udev
>>>
>>> should be something like "depends xxxx & depends yyyy & depends
>>> zzzzz" but I am not sure.
>>>
>>> In my LTIB, there is an iMX specific set of packages which are
>>> specific to the 3-stack evalbord. I think I should make my
>>> package appear in this group since it is ARM specific and tested
>>> only on iMX Freescale board.
>>>
>>> How can I set this ?
>>>
>>> Regards, Franz
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ LTIB home page:
>>> http://ltib.org
>>>
>>> Ltib mailing list address@hidden
>>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/ltib
>
>