This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
This line in getandpatch.sh doesn't seem to be working getUnpackAndPatch http://www.uclibc.org/downloads/$LIBC_DIR.tar.bz2 || \ getUnpackAndPatch http://www.uclibc.org/downloads/$LIBC_DIR.tar.gz || \ getUnpackAndPatch http://www.uclibc.org/downloads/old-releases/$LIBC_DIR.tar.bz2 || \ getUnpackAndPatch http://www.uclibc.org/downloads/old-releases/$LIBC_DIR.tar.gz It's not trying the "old-releases" directory, and the subsequent unpacking fails: + wget -P /amnt/john/home/mark/downloads -c http://www.uclibc.org/downloads/uClibc-0.9.23.tar.bz2 --11:25:21-- http://www.uclibc.org/downloads/uClibc-0.9.23.tar.bz2 => `/amnt/john/home/mark/downloads/uClibc-0.9.23.tar.bz2' Resolving www.uclibc.org... done. Connecting to www.uclibc.org[63.223.66.155]:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found 11:25:22 ERROR 404: Not Found. + test -f /amnt/john/home/mark/downloads/uClibc-0.9.23.tar.bz2 + abort 'file uClibc-0.9.23.tar.bz2 not found' + echo file uClibc-0.9.23.tar.bz2 not found file uClibc-0.9.23.tar.bz2 not found + exec false I moved the old-releases directory to the first part of the expression and it worked. Then, later I get: . . . + '[' -d linux ']' + '[' -d kernel ']' + test -d /amnt/john/home/mark/arm-dev/crosstool-0.28-rc5/patches/uClibc-0.9.23 + cd uClibc-0.9.23 + test -f /amnt/john/home/mark/arm-dev/crosstool-0.28-rc5/patches/uClibc-0.9.23/Makefiles-relocate.patch + patch -g0 --fuzz=1 -p1 -f + cat patch26225.log patching file Makefile Hunk #7 FAILED at 258. 1 out of 10 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file Makefile.rej patching file Rules.mak which results in: patching file utils/Makefile + abort 'patch /amnt/john/home/mark/arm-dev/crosstool-0.28-rc5/patches/uClibc-0.9.23/Makefiles-relocate.patch failed' + echo patch /amnt/john/home/mark/arm-dev/crosstool-0.28-rc5/patches/uClibc-0.9.23/Makefiles-relocate.patch failed patch /amnt/john/home/mark/arm-dev/crosstool-0.28-rc5/patches/uClibc-0.9.23/Makefiles-relocate.patch failed + exec false Mark On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 06:53:02PM -0700, Carl Miller wrote: > > The crosstool goal is "less than 30 minutes of effort, or 3 minutes best > > case". > > YMMV. > > Well, arm soft-float issues are proving to be much more than that, but > everything else seems (from my limited testing) to be well in hand now. > > > I'm really looking forward to the new uclibc support patches from Carl. > > Here they are! > > This is a single patch against crosstool-0.28-rc5. It includes the > required patches to binutils, gcc, and uClibc by creating new files > in the relevant patches/* subdirectories. Also newly created is > > gcc-3.3.3-uclibc-0.9.23.dat > > which should give you all the base defines to make a uClibc toolchain. > > Currently, the only versions supported are: > binutils 2.14 or 2.14.90.0.5 > gcc 3.3.3 > uClibc 0.9.23 > > Supporting other tool versions is simply a matter of porting the patches > over such that they install cleanly and do the right thing on the newer > (or older) tool. Those of you who are chuckling at the blithe use of > "simply" in that sentence are wise to do so; this is not a task for a > beginner. I mean only that no further changes to crosstool itself > should be required. I had hoped to port my Makefiles-relocate.patch for > uClibc to 0.9.26, but as of tomorrow I'll no longer be paid to work on > this, so no promises. > > I think at one point, Dan mentioned on list that these patches were > meant to be "less invasive". Erm, well, no, they aren't. I was going > for "more complete" and "more correct", rather than "less invasive", and > as you might imagine, they don't meet the "less invasive" criterion all > that well, at least as it pertains to crosstool itself. They're > great about not altering binutils or gcc behavior unless you ask for a > uclibc target, and I'd argue they're invasive in a good way to uClibc > (but others will no doubt disagree). On the upside, I think I've > addressed all the shortcomings that were voiced on list to my first set > of uClibc-crosstool patches from December, and since then, the uClibc > project has seen fit to make a hugely positive change in how they patch > gcc and binutils. Consequently, I've dumped my original gcc-uclibc and > binutils-uclibc patches in favor of those now provided by the uClibc > project, which are more complete, better thought out, and will be > better supported. > > Dan, let me know if there's anything you'd like me to adjust to make the > changes to crosstool more palatable -- I know in places it's going to be > uncomfortably hefty at first glance. Also, I haven't heard anything > from Ted Teah about FSF assignment since I mailed off the employer > disclaimer; let me know if there's anything else I need to do on that > front and I'll get right on it. > > Enjoy! As always, feedback welcome. > > > ------Carl -- Mark Beckwith, Intrig (http://www.intrig.com) ------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |