[Buildroot] [PATCH 5 of 5] toolchain-external: use host-tar instead of tar to unpack toolchains

Thomas De Schampheleire patrickdepinguin+buildroot at gmail.com
Wed Sep 21 12:16:53 UTC 2011


Hi,

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Michael S. Zick <minimod at morethan.org> wrote:
> On Wed September 21 2011, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Thomas Petazzoni
>> <thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > Le Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:55:35 +0200,
>> > Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin+buildroot at gmail.com> a écrit :
>> >
>> >> Some toolchains, like the one built with buildroot itself, use hardlinks (for
>> >> example to link between the c++ and g++ binary). Unpacking such a toolchain
>> >> with the --strip-components options does not work correctly if the system tar
>> >> is too old (<1.17). Even recent releases of RedHat/CentOS still ship with
>> >> tar 1.15.
>> >> To avoid such problems, always use host-tar instead of tar to unpack
>> >> toolchains.
>> >
>> > I'm sorry but we need to find a better solution for this. I really
>> > don't want all users to pay the price of building tar to extract
>> > the external toolchain just because some crappy distribution has an old
>> > version of tar. Can we make this conditional on the version of tar ?
>> > I'd also like some comment in the code suggesting to remove this crap 1
>> > or 2 years from now, once those RedHat/CentOS distributions will have
>> > been upgraded.
>> >
>> > Also, this proposal only takes care of using the compiled host tar for
>> > toolchain extraction. Why don't we also use it to extract all other
>> > packages (except tar itself, of course...) ?
>>
>> I agree with both your points.
>>
>
> A suggestion here -
> In that build system dependencies code/file, the one recently extended
> to also list rsync...
>
> Perhaps extend that with a bit of infrastructure that can check not
> only if present (with which) but also the version?
>
> That should help keep the build environment sane, with a message
> to the user if something is too old;
> And should relieve the maintainers of the task of remembering to
> "re-correct" the build system someday in the future.

Thanks for the hint! I will definitely look into that dependencies file..

>
> Mike
>> In fact, I raised the same doubts in my
>> original patches:
>> http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2011-August/044784.html
>> ----
>> To be honest, I'm not sure what the best way is to handle this. The
>> same problems with tar could occur in other places than just external
>> toolchains. So maybe we should use host-tar in more places.
>> On the other hand, most users have a recent, working, tar version on
>> there system. It may thus make more sense to detect the system tar
>> version and only use host-tar if it's too old.
>> ----
>>
>>
>> Regarding deprecating this change after some time: I'm not sure
>> whether this is still necessary if we make this conditional on the
>> system tar version. A user that is still on some old corporate system
>> with RedHat 5, may still need this patch in two or three years.
>>
>> I'll see if I can update this patch with an automatic detection.
>>
>> How would you go about to use the host-tar for all packages? I need to
>> add an extra autotargets call to package/tar/tar.mk, but I also need
>> to redefine TAR somewhere (currently it's defined in
>> package/Makefile.package.in). But TAR_STRIP_COMPONENTS uses TAR with a
>> := dependency, and package/tar/tar.mk is only included after
>> package/Makefile.package.in, so I would need to add the conditional
>> check in two places.
>> Unless I move the check to a new file that is included from both
>> tar.mk and Makefile.package.in. In this case, where will I place the
>> file?
>> How do you see this?
>>
>> Thanks for your comments,
>> Thomas
>>
>> >
>> > Thomas
>> > --
>> > Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
>> > Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
>> > development, consulting, training and support.
>> > http://free-electrons.com
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > buildroot mailing list
>> > buildroot at busybox.net
>> > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
>> _______________________________________________
>> buildroot mailing list
>> buildroot at busybox.net
>> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> buildroot mailing list
> buildroot at busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
>


More information about the buildroot mailing list