On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 10:06 PM Nigel Taylor <njtay...@asterisk.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 07/13/15 00:54, Dave Vandervies wrote:
> > Somebody claiming to be Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >
> >>                                   For some common things (in particular
> >> programs from coreutils) we have scaffolding to prevent autoconf from
> >> picking them up, but the arm-none-eabi ports are too complex for the
> >> normal things to work.
> >
> > ...And, after following up on the suggestions from this thread and
> > digging around in /usr/ports/infrastructure, I think I've figured out
> > one of the reasons why and come up with a better quick fix.
> >
> > Newlib (and binutils and gcc, though they don't have this particular
> > symptom) does a lot of recursive configuring during the build, and
> > doesn't do a very good job of passing things the top-level configure
> > was asked to do down to the sub-configures.
> > Adding ${CONFIGURE_ENV} to ${MAKE_ENV} so that it affects the environment
> > that the sub-configures are actually running in persuades them to pick
> > up the overrides that tell them not to use gmkdir.
> >
> > Index: Makefile
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /cvs/ports/devel/arm-none-eabi/newlib/Makefile,v
> > retrieving revision 1.1.1.1
> > diff -u -p -r1.1.1.1 Makefile
> > --- Makefile  28 May 2015 23:28:26 -0000      1.1.1.1
> > +++ Makefile  12 Jul 2015 23:42:48 -0000
> > @@ -7,6 +7,13 @@ VERSION=     2.2.0.1
> >  PKGNAME=     ${CONFIG}-newlib-${VERSION}
> >  #REVISION=   0
> >
> > +# The build stage for newlib invokes configure (repeatedly), so make
> > +# sure the sub-configures run in a suitable environment.
> > +# Without this, if coreutils is present at configure time, the
> > +# sub-configures will pick up gmkdir as their preferred concurrency-safe
> > +# 'mkdir -p'.
> > +MAKE_ENV+=   ${CONFIGURE_ENV}
> > +
> >  HOMEPAGE=    http://sourceware.org/newlib/
> >
> >  MASTER_SITES=        ftp://sourceware.org/pub/newlib/
> >
> >
> Builds for me, with coreutils uninstalled mid build.
>
>
This seems reasonable to me. Does anyone have any objections?

Reply via email to