Hi,
While I find the build process basically opaque, I think
anything that can be done to make it better and ckearer is well worth it.
For me some simple examples and some clearer explanation
of the intent of the various makes would be a big help.
i.e.-
1. rebuild all except too
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:52:28 +0100, Matthias Buecher / Germany wrote:
> Just read this thread today and want to mention, that if you run into
> build problems you should issue a "make distclean" (not dirclean) to get
> rid of all old stuff and extra packages (create patches of your manual
> change
Just read this thread today and want to mention, that if you run into
build problems you should issue a "make distclean" (not dirclean) to get
rid of all old stuff and extra packages (create patches of your manual
changes first, so you can later re-apply them).
Remember that trunk is ongoing develo
Seems people are filing tickets about it now...
https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/7674
I had the same thing happen to me with uhttpd, (minus the lua stuff), where the
build system didn't build openssl first. It seems that the build goes straight
to 'install' targets, skipping the 'compile' targets
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:56:19 +0200, Benjamin Cama wrote:
>> I'll give that a try. It's a little confusing, though, having builds
>> that don't build, might it not be worth tracking down why and
>> addressing that root cause, if only to prevent a repeat of the
>> discussion?
>
> Yes, it's confusi
Le lundi 26 juillet 2010 à 23:11 +, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> 22388 didn't build for me. Joseph said a fresh checkout built from him.
Sorry, I thought it was you. But you may give it a try.
> >> What process do you use to clean the offending package?
> >
> > I just meant "make package/foo/c
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:37:13 +0200, Benjamin Cama wrote:
> Le lundi 26 juillet 2010 à 16:13 +, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> I've tracked it down to build 22385 - 22384 (which has the last commit
>> at 22383) builds, 22385 doesn't for me.
>
> But you said earlier that a later revision (22388) wo
Le lundi 26 juillet 2010 à 16:13 +, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> I've tracked it down to build 22385 - 22384 (which has the last commit at
> 22383) builds, 22385 doesn't for me.
But you said earlier that a later revision (22388) works; so, why
bother ? Furthermore, these changesets don't seem to
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:13:32 +, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I've tracked it down to build 22385 - 22384 (which has the last commit
> at 22383) builds, 22385 doesn't for me.
Really strange, I backed down to 22383 and now it won't build that one
either.
Jim
--
Jim Henderson
Please keep on-topi
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:41:25 +0200, Benjamin Cama wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le lundi 26 juillet 2010 à 04:20 -0600, Joseph Roback a écrit :
>> I've tried 22362,22380,22382,22388 from fresh SVN checkouts and all 4
>> of them worked. Before I even tried a `make dirclean' before
>> rebuilding. I also tried m
Hi,
Le lundi 26 juillet 2010 à 04:20 -0600, Joseph Roback a écrit :
> I've tried 22362,22380,22382,22388 from fresh SVN checkouts and all 4
> of them worked. Before I even tried a `make dirclean' before
> rebuilding. I also tried manually deleting: `rm -rf bin build_dir
> staging_dir' ...
>
> I m
I've tried 22362,22380,22382,22388 from fresh SVN checkouts and all 4 of them
worked. Before I even tried a `make dirclean' before rebuilding. I also tried
manually deleting: `rm -rf bin build_dir staging_dir' ...
I must have had something stale in my tree to cause this.. what I am not sure.
J
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:05:12 -0600, Joseph Roback wrote:
> I using r22388. After building miniupnpd manually and continuing the
> build, uhttpd failed because its dependency openssl was there. I
> manually build uhttpd
>
> make package/uhttpd-compile
>
> and then it was ok. I think the build sys
I using r22388. After building miniupnpd manually and continuing the build,
uhttpd failed because its dependency openssl was there. I manually build uhttpd
make package/uhttpd-compile
and then it was ok. I think the build system dependencies are screwed up
somehow...
Joe
On Jul 25, 2010, at
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 21:44:52 -0600, Joseph Roback wrote:
> Also interesting, if invoked to build miniupnpd manually, the iptables
> dependency seems to be honored.
>
> $ make package/feeds/packages/miniupnpd-compile Collecting package info:
> done
> make[1] package/feeds/packages/miniupnpd-compi
Also interesting, if invoked to build miniupnpd manually, the iptables
dependency seems to be honored.
$ make package/feeds/packages/miniupnpd-compile
Collecting package info: done
make[1] package/feeds/packages/miniupnpd-compile
make[2] -C package/libtool host-compile
make[2] -C package/libto
I am experiencing the same errors. It happens to me even with `make -j1'. The
miniupnpd package is being built before the iptables package, which miniupnpd
depends on. It uses header files from the iptables package.
The miniupnpd Makefile tries to set CFLAGS to
CFLAGS="... -I$(firstword $(wildc
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:18:53 +, Jim Henderson wrote:
> When trying to build from the latest sources, I get the following output
> (with V=99) on 'make world':
Seems to be working now.
Jim
--
Jim Henderson
Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
When trying to build from the latest sources, I get the following output
(with V=99) on 'make world':
--- snip ---
make[3]: Entering directory `/home/jhenderson/Downloads/openwrt/feeds/
packages/net/miniupnpd'
ln -sf /home/jhenderson/Downloads/openwrt/build_dir/linux-ar71xx_generic/
miniupnpd-1.
19 matches
Mail list logo
