On 05/29/2015 03:14 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
This is the first in a series of patches to make a build with an in-tree
GNU libiconv work as designed.
This patch fixes dependencies for parallel make, and avoids failures
with make targets not supported by GNU libiconv.
-- Yaakov Selkowitz Associate Software Engineer, ARM Red Hat, Inc.
0001-toplevel-libiconv.patch
2015-05-29 Yaakov Selkowitz<[email protected]>
* Makefile.def (libiconv): Mark pdf/html/info as missing.
(configure-gcc): Depend on all-libiconv.
(all-gcc): Ditto.
(configure-libcpp): Ditto.
(all-libcpp): Ditto.
(configure-intl): Ditto.
* Makefile.in: Regenerate.
How was this patch tested? I don't see anything glaringly wrong, but
stranger things have happened.
I think just a bootstrap check is fine here (rather than a bootstrap +
regression test). If you could bootstrap with and without an in-tree
libiconv it'd be appreciated.
Jeff
