On 1 February 2013 17:22, Burton, Ross wrote:
> For what it's worth, removing everything that looks dubious in
> EXTRA_OECONF and that do_configure_append results in a zero-difference
> buildhistory, so it at least compiles. I'll kick off an image build
> now and see if fonts still work.
I've pu
On 1 February 2013 15:21, Richard Purdie
wrote:
> We likely need to replace this with something sane. The question is
> whether we need it at all and if so, what problem dies it solve?
It looks a bit like an attempt to build native tools when compiling,
as FC_LANG and FC_GLYPHNAME are also overri
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 15:56 +0100, Mike Looijmans wrote:
> When compiling fontconfig, it fails because it is using "build" flags in
> the host compiler. I have BUILD_OPTIMIZATIONS="-march=native ..." set,
> and fontconfig will fail to compile because it passes the -march=native
> flag to the ARM
On 1 February 2013 15:09, Burton, Ross wrote:
> Erm, yeah. The git log that file stops in 2007 and they were present
> then too, so the appearance of them isn't easy.
Richard pointed out I didn't read the diff properly and it was me who
introduced this.
I have no idea what I was doing.
Ross
_
On 1 February 2013 14:56, Mike Looijmans wrote:
> I have no idea what fontconfig is supposed to do and where it is supposed to
> run, but it looks to me as if that configure_append should not be there at
> all.
Erm, yeah. The git log that file stops in 2007 and they were present
then too, so the
When compiling fontconfig, it fails because it is using "build" flags in
the host compiler. I have BUILD_OPTIMIZATIONS="-march=native ..." set,
and fontconfig will fail to compile because it passes the -march=native
flag to the ARM compiler which then fails. Which is justified.
This is the par
