[OE-core] [Openembedded-architecture] Cached size of off_t

[Khem Raj]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Paul Eggleton
<paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:23:33 Khem Raj wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> We cache size of off_t in site files and the value is 4 in most cases
>>
>>
>> meta/site/arm-linux:ac_cv_sizeof_off_t=${ac_cv_sizeof_off_t=4}
>> meta/site/ix86-common:ac_cv_sizeof_off_t=${ac_cv_sizeof_off_t=4}
>> meta/site/nios2-linux:ac_cv_sizeof_off_t=${ac_cv_sizeof_off_t=4}
>> meta/site/powerpc32-linux:ac_cv_sizeof_off_t=${ac_cv_sizeof_off_t=4}
>> meta/site/x32-linux:ac_cv_sizeof_off_t=${ac_cv_sizeof_off_t=8}
>> meta/site/x86_64-linux:ac_cv_sizeof_off_t=${ac_cv_sizeof_off_t=8}
>>
>>
>> However this value is wrong when largefile support is enabled (which is
>> default) on most OE based distros. It also lands us in nasty bugs which are
>> complicated to uncover eg. the curl issue
>>
>> http://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?id=3c58712465494e441c4
>> 036a7cf21d2e6d343efab
>>
>> and just in OE-Core more e.g. grub2,libsndfile1,pax are showing same
>> symptoms.
>>
>> I think this value should be left for configure to compute and
>> autotools.bbclass should pass --{enable|disable}-largefile based upon
>> DISTRO_FEATURES enabling largefile support
>>
>> Do we see any downsides or point I might have missed
>
> IIRC I think the issue was older configure scripts without the capability to
> compute this properly (where we're not auto-reconf'ing them).

Thanks Paul.
I think in that case it is better to move that into the concerned
recipe and let defaults be reversed


>
> Ross, any thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> --
>
> Paul Eggleton
> Intel Open Source Technology Centre