[Buildroot] [PATCH] core/sdk: generate the SDK tarball ourselves

Trent Piepho tpiepho at impinj.com
Tue Jun 12 17:11:29 UTC 2018

On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 11:57 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello,
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 22:10:55 +0000, Trent Piepho wrote:
> > Some ideas to avoid this:
> > 1. Make tarball generation a new target instead of "sdk".
> > 2. Make tarball generation the "sdk" target but add another target that
> > does what "sdk" used to do.
> For both (1) and (2), the proposal of Yann is to have "make sdk" do
> what it does today + some new thing.
> So there is nothing that prevents to continue using "make sdk" as
> you're using it today, and ignore the new tarball that is generated.
> I.e, the change Yann is proposing is backward compatible: "make sdk" is
> still doing what it used to do

But it will be much slower now, as creating and compressing gigabyte
tarballs takes a while.  If there were a prep-sdk target, then I could
use that.

> > 3. Allow the tarball path prefix to be specified in some way, so that
> > it is easier to inject into an automated process that uses the SDK. 
> > E.g., it can be defined as a constant in the defconfig, or passed from
> > a higher level to both buildroot when the SDK is made and to whatever
> > uses the SDK.
> That is another option indeed. Perhaps that makes sense, yes.

I'd find it better, as I have jobs that make different types of SDK.  I
could give them different prefixes, but not have the prefix change from
commit to commit.

More information about the buildroot mailing list