Bug#708094: linux: FTBFS on powerpcspe due to missing mkimage
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 05:00:04PM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 05/13/2013 03:40 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 09:01 +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
> >> Source: linux
> >> Version: 3.8.12-1
> >> Severity: wishlist
> >> Tags: sid
> >> User: debian-powerpcspe@breakpoint.cc
> >> Usertags: powerpcspe
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> on powerpcspe[1], linux currently FTBFS like this:
> >>
> >> ...
> >> HOSTCC arch/powerpc/boot/mktree
> >> WRAP arch/powerpc/boot/uImage
> >> INFO: Uncompressed kernel (size 0x5d1000) overlaps the address of the wrapper(0x400000)
> >> INFO: Fixing the link_address of wrapper to (0x600000)
> >> "mkimage" command not found - U-Boot images will not be built
> >> make[6]: *** [arch/powerpc/boot/uImage] Error 1
> >> ...
> >>
> >> This is because the platforms CONFIG_MPC85xx activated in our powerpcspe config
> >> select CONFIG_DEFAULT_UIMAGE which leads to mkimage (for uImage creation) to be
> >> called.
> >>
> >> Adding Build-Depends: u-boot-tools fixes this. Limiting to [powerpcspe] would
> >> be fine for now, IMO.
> >
> > On many ARM platforms, u-boot images are generated by flash-kernel at
> > installation time. Shouldn't this platform be handled in the same way?
>
> Thank you for the quick response!
>
> You are right - the uImage generated in the above step is not directly
> used on boot (without flashing separately on typical PowerPCSPE boards).
> I'm working on a solution for this, separately.
>
> However, the powerpc specific option CONFIG_DEFAULT_UIMAGE always tries
> to build uImage at (Debian package) linux build time, see
> arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile:207:
>
> image-$(CONFIG_DEFAULT_UIMAGE) += uImage
>
> So can we add u-boot-tools as build-dep for powerpcspe? Or do you have a
> different suggestion for making the default package "linux" build?
Please provide a patch to disable building the unwanted file.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
- Albert Camus
Reply to: