[Buildroot] [PATCH v5 5/5] xbmc: new package

[Maxime Hadjinlian]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Martin Bark <martin at barkynet.com> wrote:
> Maxime,
>
> Sorry for the late replay
>
>
> On 14/02/14 23:51, Maxime Hadjinlian wrote:
>
> -- snip --
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/package/xbmc/xbmc.mk b/package/xbmc/xbmc.mk
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..db43a9f
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/package/xbmc/xbmc.mk
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +################################################################################
>>>> +#
>>>> +# xbmc
>>>> +#
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +################################################################################
>>>> +
>>>> +XBMC_VERSION = 12.3-Frodo
>>>> +XBMC_SITE = $(call github,xbmc,xbmc,$(XBMC_VERSION))
>>>> +XBMC_LICENSE = GPLv2
>>>> +XBMC_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE.GPL
>>>> +XBMC_DEPENDENCIES = host-lzo host-sdl_image host-swig
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you need to add host-gperf, i had to add this for xmbc to
>>> compile.
>>
>> host-gperf ? I never needed that, why should it be needed ?
>
>
> I just verified and xmbc does fails to build for me because i'm missing
> gpref.  I checked and the configure script tests for gpref and errors if
> it's missing.  The machine i'm building on does not have gperf installed.
> Either adding host-gpref or patching configure.in to remove the tests for
> gpref fixed this issue.  I think probably patching configure.in is a better
> solution.
Okay, I must have it on my system, that's why I never noticed. I'll
add it to the dependency then.
Why do you think patching the configure.in would be better ?
It seems to me that it would add another patch to maintain, which
would never go mainline, if they search for it in their configure,
they must need it somehow.
>
> Thanks
Thank you