[OE-core] [PATCH] linux-yocto-3.4: Disable extra slang header search path

[McClintock Matthew-B29882]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Bruce Ashfield
<bruce.ashfield at windriver.com> wrote:
> On 12-08-07 09:50 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 09:24 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12-08-07 07:17 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Add in a workaround to avoid host infection detection build failures
>>>> from the slang include directory in perf. I'll defer to Bruce to
>>>> fix this properly but we need a workaround now as this is breaking
>>>> builds.
>>>
>>>
>>> I just followed up on a patch from 3 days ago, but I'll follow up here
>>> as well .. just to make sure the message gets through.
>>>
>>> We had a pending patch to fix this issue from Liang Li here @ windriver.
>>>
>>> Did that patch not fix the problem, or did it fall through the cracks ?
>>
>>
>> It is not correct. It adds in another search path and just hides the
>> issue. We should *never* be putting -I/usr/include/slang on the compiler
>> commandline at all period.
>
>
> I'd argue that it's more correct than commenting out the upstream
> include path.
>
> It fixes the problem, doesn't require a patch to the kernel and give
> us time to work upstream and get a real fix.
>
> So I'd really prefer that we take that fix, versus the kernel patch
> if it actually fixes the problem.
>
>
>>
>> I'd assumed in all the email traffic that this was clear and that
>> another solution was being worked on that would be acceptable upstream
>> too.
>
>
> Exactly what I referred to above. But we don't want a temporary
> kernel path, we want the temporary recipe patch.
>
>
>>
>> Perhaps a better option might be: -I=/usr/include/slang ? That assumes
>> that all kernel gcc versions would accept the = notation, that should be
>> true by now?
>
>
> Not in my experience when dealing with the upstream kernel and tools,
> there are plenty of old compilers floating around.

Sorry, I'm not following this thread super close.. will all kernel
trees need to apply this patch? That does not seem ideal...

-M