[OE-core] [PATCH] pr-util: insert appropriate parameter to adapt libtool

[yzhu1]

On 11/18/2013 08:20 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 18:31 +0800, yanjun.zhu wrote:
>> When ccache is enabled, a parameter "ccache" is inserted.
>> libtool can not handle this parameter correctly. So "--tag=CC"
>> is introduced to help libtool handle it.
>> ---
>>   meta/recipes-support/apr/apr-util_1.5.2.bb |    5 +++++
>>   1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/apr/apr-util_1.5.2.bb b/meta/recipes-support/apr/apr-util_1.5.2.bb
>> index ea0f7fb..d6ae394 100644
>> --- a/meta/recipes-support/apr/apr-util_1.5.2.bb
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-support/apr/apr-util_1.5.2.bb
>> @@ -34,6 +34,11 @@ do_configure_append() {
>>   	if [ "${CLASSOVERRIDE}" = "class-target" ]; then
>>   		cp ${STAGING_DATADIR}/apr/apr_rules.mk ${S}/build/rules.mk
>>   	fi
>> +
>> +	# When ccache is enabled, libtool needs --tag=CC to choose correct handle methods.
>> +	if [ -f ${S}/build/rules.mk ]; then
>> +		sed -i "s,^LTFLAGS,LTFLAGS      = --silent --tag=CC\n#LTFLAGS,g" ${S}/build/rules.mk
>> +	fi
>>   }
>>   do_configure_prepend_class-native() {
>>   	cp ${STAGING_DATADIR_NATIVE}/apr/apr_rules.mk ${S}/build/rules.mk
> This looks like something better done with a specific patch along with
> an explanation in the patch header. Is there any reason upstream
> wouldn't do this?
>
> By using a patch we ensure that when things are upgraded, the right
> thing still gets done. You may need to update the apr recipe itself to
> get the patch right.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
Hi, Richard

rules.mk is copied from apr_rules.mk. apr_rules.mk is generated by 
configure task.
The configure task is after patch. So it is difficult to make a patch 
for this defect.

Best Regards!
Zhu Yanjun
>