[Buildroot] [PATCH V4 2/2] i.MX: Update versions to match latest Freescale release
Eric Nelson
eric.nelson at boundarydevices.com
Thu Feb 13 02:00:48 UTC 2014
Hi Yann,
On 02/12/2014 04:41 PM, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> Eric, All,
>
> On 2014-02-12 13:20 -0700, Eric Nelson spake thusly:
>> On 02/12/2014 12:10 PM, Eric Nelson wrote:
>>> On 02/12/2014 12:03 PM, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> [--SNIP--]
>>>> $ make imx-lib-extract
>>>> [...]
>>>> Unpacking file mkdir: cannot create directory ‘imx-lib-3.5.7-1.0.0’:
>>>> File exists
>>>>
>>>> This is only a warning, but still: maybe extract the EULA _after_
>>>> unpacking the archive?
>>
>> Re-arranging these commands doesn't get rid of the warning.
>>
>> It appears that the directory is created by the bit of
>> structure using IMX_LIB_EXTRACT_CMDS, and the warning
>> message is from a 'mkdir' embedded within the self-extracting
>> package.
>>
>> I could 'rm' the directory inside IMX_LIB_EXTRACT_CMDS,
>> but it's not clear that this is the right thing to do.
>
> No, as pointed out by Arnout, this won't work.
>
Right.
> However, The cleanest in my opinion would be to extract the archive into
> a subdir of $(@D), like:
>
> # Blurb about auto-extract in a properly-named dir
> define IMX_LIB_EXTRACT_CMDS
> cd $(@D); \
> sh $(DL_DIR)/$(IMX_LIB_SOURCE) --force --auto-accept
And then move them?
i.e.
mv $(@D)/packagemname/* $(@D)/
rm -r $(@D)/packagemname/
> endef
>
> Since we are anyway using the generic-package infrastructure, we do
> provide the build and isntall commands, so it is pretty easy to use that
> sub-dir in the build and install commands:
>
> define IMX_LIB_BUILD_CMDS
> $(IMX_LIB_MAKE_ENV) $(MAKE1) -C $(@D)/imx-lib-$(FREESCALE_IMX_VERSION)
> endef
>
It seems like over-kill to keep the directory around.
And what about the patch step references?
> ... and so on.
>
> Also, to be noted: the warning probably pre-existed your patch, and is
> not related to extracting the EULA.
>
It did.
I've been trying to figure out whether I can split this
into a separate patch for the purpose of a separate commit
message.
> Speaking of the EULA, since 'make legal-info' will copy the source file
> as-is, the EULA will be present in the generated legal-info directory
> structure. So, I wonder if we really care about extracting it in the
> first place.
>
I don't understand well enough to comment, and this too seems like
the subject of a separate patch.
> I'm a bit uneasy with the awk trick to begin with, since it would break
> without us easily noticing when we bump and the self-extractor no longer
> uses EULA/EOEULA (since the awk script will happily process its script,
> and will just print nothing and exit without error).
>
There may be another way, by executing the extractor first without
the --accept-eula and re-directing the output.
Again, this seems like the subject of a different patch.
I'd also like to get Freescale to comment on this.
Perhaps we can get them to provide a "--showlicense" in the
next release, and change things then.
And while we're at it, we can suggest "mkdir -p" when the "--force"
option is specified.
Regards,
Eric
More information about the buildroot
mailing list