[OE-core] [PATCH v5 03/12] ovmf: move from meta-luv to OE-core

[Khem Raj]

On 17-02-17 13:10:56, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 16:30 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > From: meta-luv <luv at lists.01.org>
> > 
> > This is an unmodified copy of
> > github.com/01org/luv-yocto/meta-luv/recipes-core/ovmf revision
> > 4be4329.
> 
> https://autobuilder.yocto.io/builders/nightly-world/builds/156
> 
> which boils down to:
> 
> | "gcc-ar" cr /home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-world/build/build/tmp/work/x86-pokymllib32-linux/lib32-ovmf/git-r0/git/Build/OvmfIa32/RELEASE_GCC5/IA32/MdeModulePkg/Library/BootLogoLib/BootLogoLib/OUTPUT/BootLogoLib.lib  @/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-world/build/build/tmp/work/x86-pokymllib32-linux/lib32-ovmf/git-r0/git/Build/OvmfIa32/RELEASE_GCC5/IA32/MdeModulePkg/Library/BootLogoLib/BootLogoLib/OUTPUT/object_files.lst
> | make: *** [/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-world/build/build/tmp/work/x86-pokymllib32-linux/lib32-ovmf/git-r0/git/Build/OvmfIa32/RELEASE_GCC5/IA32/MdeModulePkg/Library/BootMaintenanceManagerUiLib/BootMaintenanceManagerUiLib/DEBUG/BootMaintenanceManager.c] Error 2
> | VfrCompile: ERROR 1003: Invalid option value
> |   VFR file name /home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-world/build/build/tmp/work/x86-pokymllib32-linux/lib32-ovmf/git-r0/git/Build/OvmfIa32/RELEASE_GCC5/IA32/MdeModulePkg/Library/BootMaintenanceManagerUiLib/BootMaintenanceManagerUiLib/OUTPUT/BootMaintenanceManager.i is too long.
> | "gcc-ar" cr /home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-world/build/build/tmp/work/x86-pokymllib32-linux/lib32-ovmf/git-r0/git/Build/OvmfIa32/RELEASE_GCC5/IA32/OvmfPkg/Library/NvVarsFileLib/NvVarsFileLib/OUTPUT/NvVarsFileLib.lib  @/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-world/build/build/tmp/work/x86-pokymllib32-linux/lib32-ovmf/git-r0/git/Build/OvmfIa32/RELEASE_GCC5/IA32/OvmfPkg/Library/NvVarsFileLib/NvVarsFileLib/OUTPUT/object_files.lst
> 
> i.e. path length issues.
> 
> We saw this on multiple builds :(.

I wonder why its using gcc-ar that should actually be <cross>-gcc-ar
so probably we need to set AR to point to <cross>-gcc-ar, but I would
like to see if we can use normal ar since  gcc-ar would fail with clang