[Buildroot] [PATCH 0/8 RFC] core: install foo-config scripts early in the PATH (branch yem/foo-config-in-PATH)

[Yann E. MORIN]

Thomas, All,

On 2015-12-22 11:53 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:55:18 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> 
> > That one is interesting, indeed. We "fix" rtai-config in-place in
> > staging, but then we never pass $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/bin/rtai-config to
> > any variable of any package, which means that any consumer of
> > rtai-config, if any, is called with $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/bin in its PATH.
> 
> Absolutely not.
> 
> There are no packages in Buildroot that use the RTAI libraries. The
> rtai-config script in $(STAGING_DIR) is meant to be used:
> 
>  1/ by custom packages (i.e not in Buildroot mainline)
> 
>  2/ by people building their stuff outside of Buildroot
> 
> > I think this is an abomination. There are three cases there:
> 
> There is absolutely no abomination here. This is a regular *-config
> script, installed in STAGING_DIR like any other. It is just not used by
> any package in the upstream Buildroot.

Oh, sorry, what I meant is:  having staging/usr/bin in the PATH is an
abomination.

Of course, the rtai-config script is not the abomination I was referring
too. My bad, I was not carefull enough in proof-reading what I wrote.

> > > It is not broken today. Such special *-config scripts get naturally
> > > installed in $(STAGING_DIR), they might be fixed up by a patch or some
> > > custom hook. And then on the consumer side, we pass some environment
> > > variable or other trick to get the consumer build system to use this
> > > specific -config script rather than the one in the PATH. Nothing
> > > special.
> > 
> > Then those patch-or-hook fixups should be complemented by a post-install
> > hook that also installs the -config script in the newly-introduced
> > FOO_CONFIG_DIR.
> 
> Correct.
> 
> > Again, nothing that this series would *break*; existing "workarounds"
> > would continue to work as-is. It's only a new opportunity to cleanup
> > the mess, but will need much more pathces later on.
> > 
> > Ah, that's probably what I forgot to write in my cover later: this

s/later/letter/   Damit... :-)

Cheers! ;-)

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

> > 8-patch series only introduces the "infra" and does not actually fix the
> > packages, or undo our workarounds, or removes our patches, of add new
> > fixes. Hmm. Well, actually I did:
> > 
> >     When/if the topic is accepted (and the series is fixed after the
> >     reviews), we can then (un)fix / (un)patch packages in follow-up
> >     patches.
> 
> Yes, yes, this is fully understood, I do understand that we will be
> able to remove a number of patches, or custom variable passing.
> 
> Thomas
> -- 
> Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
> Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
> http://free-electrons.com

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'