The attached ebuild bumps ccs-tools to 1.8.2_p20110916 In difference to the 1.8.0 ebuilds it drops the need for the parallel-build patch as it has been upstreamed. It also includes the "--as-needed" bugfix (see bug #364921) as well as a minor optical sed improvement (see patch in #364921) Reproducible: Always
Created attachment 287971 [details] ccs-tools-1.8.2_p20110916.ebuild
Thanks. Added 1.8.3_p20110929 (which has --as-needed problem fixed) in the tree. P.S. A comment about attached ebuild: It would be better to use epatch instead of sed. sed should be used only when replacements are changed by build environment (like CFLAGS, LDFLAGS ...)
Created attachment 288289 [details] ccs-tools-1.8.3_p20110929-r1.ebuild Thanks for adding. I wanted to provide a new ebuild for the new release after Tetsuo Handa informed me that it was coming today including the fix (thanks to him for getting this in so quickly!), seems you beat me to it :) Anyway, there are a few more things that I had fixed. If you want it in patch format and/or a new bug, please say a word. Attached the file, here are the changes: 1) Line 18: Trow out the RESTRICT, as tests have to be enabled manually in FEATURES anyway 2) Line 39: The handbook suggests using make for tests, not emake 3) Line 46,47: Throw the config section out, there is no longer an upstream config file 4) Line 65: Remove the specific kernel string in the elog, ccs-tools applies for all kernel versions patch 1.8 can be applied to 5) Line 70: Upstream has changed, it no longer has a .sh suffix
Thank you for your contribution! Here is my review. > 1) Line 18: Trow out the RESTRICT, as tests have to be enabled manually in > FEATURES anyway Not for developers. We developer use developer profile and it's default to use FEATURES=test, so we need this RESTRICT. (and the test needs root privileges) > 2) Line 39: The handbook suggests using make for tests, not emake Why we should use "make" is because the tests should not be run parallelised. About this ebuild, the "emake" just compile test programs, so I don't think "emake" should be avoided here. > 3) Line 46,47: Throw the config section out, there is no longer an upstream > config file Seems fine. > 4) Line 65: Remove the specific kernel string in the elog, ccs-tools applies > for all kernel versions patch 1.8 can be applied to This is a bit difficult.. The current elog may suggest that "TOMOYO 2.x is not merged for <2.6.30, so use ccs-patch" ... but I know ccs-patch and tomoyo-patch are not completely the same... :( We might need more accurate elog lines.... > 5) Line 70: Upstream has changed, it no longer has a .sh suffix yeah, good catch. I've applied 3 and 5 changes. (without revision bumping, because its install files are not changed)
(In reply to comment #4) > Thank you for your contribution! > > Here is my review. > > > 1) Line 18: Trow out the RESTRICT, as tests have to be enabled manually in > > FEATURES anyway > > Not for developers. We developer use developer profile and it's default to use > FEATURES=test, so we need this RESTRICT. (and the test needs root privileges) > > > 2) Line 39: The handbook suggests using make for tests, not emake > > Why we should use "make" is because the tests should not be run parallelised. > About this ebuild, the "emake" just compile test programs, so I don't think > "emake" should be avoided here. Yeah, makes sense > > 3) Line 46,47: Throw the config section out, there is no longer an upstream > > config file > > Seems fine. > > > 4) Line 65: Remove the specific kernel string in the elog, ccs-tools applies > > for all kernel versions patch 1.8 can be applied to > > This is a bit difficult.. The current elog may suggest that "TOMOYO 2.x is not > merged for <2.6.30, so use ccs-patch" ... but I know ccs-patch and tomoyo-patch > are not completely the same... :( We might need more accurate elog lines.... > Yes, that's a little harded. All we can say is that ccs-tools can be used for every same-version ccs-patch which is available for all kernel releases from 2.6.11 to 3.1, and also for several 2.4 versions For the 2.x series it is harder, because the upstream 2.x version depends on the kernel, but there are also backports available (though I guess we can ignore them, users should know what they do there :) Here is what the official doc says: 2.5.x Documentation (Linux 3.2 and later) (Backport patch for Linux 2.6.33 to 3.1 is available.) 2.4.x Documentation (Linux 3.1) (Backport patch for Linux 2.6.33 to 3.0 is available.) 2.3.x Documentation (Linux 2.6.36 to 3.0) 2.2.x Documentation (Linux 2.6.30 to 2.6.35) > > 5) Line 70: Upstream has changed, it no longer has a .sh suffix > > yeah, good catch. > > I've applied 3 and 5 changes. (without revision bumping, because its install > files are not changed) Thanks!
Since this ebuild is for ccs-patch'ed kernel, I'm thinking to simplify the log message only to notice about 1.8 link and add notice about tomoyo-tools. How do you think of it? elog "Execute the following command to setup the initial policy configuration:" elog elog "emerge --config =${CATEGORY}/${PF}" elog elog "For more information, please visit http://tomoyo.sourceforge.jp/1.8/" elog elog "This tools are for ccs-patch'ed kernels. There are also sys-apps/tomoyo-tools" elog "which works with TOMOYO 2.x.x versions (already merged into Linux kernel)." elog "If you'd like to try them, please emerge sys-apps/tomoyo-tools instead."
(In reply to comment #6) > Since this ebuild is for ccs-patch'ed kernel, I'm thinking to simplify the log > message only to notice about 1.8 link and add notice about tomoyo-tools. > > How do you think of it? > > elog "Execute the following command to setup the initial policy configuration:" > elog > elog "emerge --config =${CATEGORY}/${PF}" > elog > elog "For more information, please visit http://tomoyo.sourceforge.jp/1.8/" > elog > elog "This tools are for ccs-patch'ed kernels. There are also > sys-apps/tomoyo-tools" > elog "which works with TOMOYO 2.x.x versions (already merged into Linux > kernel)." > elog "If you'd like to try them, please emerge sys-apps/tomoyo-tools instead." Yes, that's fine, I think everyone will understand what version to use.
Thanks for review! Changed in CVS.
