[Buildroot] [PATCH next v4 6/6] core: implement per-package SDK and target

Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind.be
Sun Nov 18 21:55:26 UTC 2018



On 16/11/2018 20:57, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> Thomas², All,
> 
> On 2018-11-16 16:22 +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire spake thusly:
>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018, 14:47 Thomas Petazzoni < [1]thomas.petazzoni at bootlin.com wrote:
>>   On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 17:41:35 +0100, Andreas Naumann wrote:
> [--SNIP--]
>>   > I made a patch which moves the _FINAL_DEPENDENCIES preparation to an
>>   > additional .stamp-configure-prepare step just before .stamp_configured.
>>   > That works but is not particularly beautiful.
>>
>>   That is not too bad actually. Semantically speaking, preparing the
>>   per-package folders is not really part of the configuration step. It
>>   could be logical to do it in a "prepare" step.
> 
> And IIRC, you alreqady proposed such a step, specifically to be able to
> do the autopreconf for OOT building (which I am still working on, btw).
> 
> Maybe this step can be re-used for various pacakges infras, like the
> kconfig one, to add preparation steps.
> 
>>   The only thing that I dislike a bit with this is that it would no
>>   longer be consistent with what we do for download and extract
>>   dependencies: we prepare the per-package folders with download and
>>   extract dependencies respectively in the download and extract steps. So
>>   it would be quite logical to also do the same for the "configuration
>>   dependencies" (which we name just "dependencies" in Buildroot).
>>
>>   So, this leaves us with 3 options:
>>
>>    - Keep the dependency preparation within the download, extract and
>>      configure step, as proposed in this v4. This will require changing
>>      the kconfig logic to prepare the configuration file inside the
>>      "configure" step and not as a additional step injected before the
>>      "configure" step.
>>
>>    - Keep the dependency preparation within the download and extract
>>      steps, and make an exception for the configure step, with a separate
>>      "prepare" step that comes before. Not nice in terms of consistency,
>>      as explained above.
>>
>>    - Introduce "prepare download", "prepare extract" and "prepare
>>      configure" steps that would do the dependency preparation.
>>
>>   > I guess a more proper solution would be to somehow move the
>>   > kconfig_fixup code into the configure-step. Maybe use the
>>   > pre-configure-hook, any suggestions?
>>
>>   I don't recall why they need to be done before the configuration step,
>>   but I'm pretty sure there is a reason for that.
>>
>>   Yann, Thomas, do you remember ?
>>
>> My mind triggers a big red warning light right now, so let's be careful :-)
> 
> Yes, we got bitten pretty hard when preparing the kconfig infra. But
> what can we remember from an almost-5-year old work initiated after
> FOSDEM? ;-)
> 
>> The goal is that one can run 'make foo-menuconfig' from a clean tree,
>> without first processing (downloading, building, ...) the dependencies
>> of foo first.
>> If you put this stuff in the configure step of foo, you are bound byi
>> its dependencies. There may be other reasons too, not sure.
> 
> I am all in favour of simplifying it if it can be made simpler by adding
> an official extra 'prepare' step, that exists for all types of package
> infras. This we'd have 4 levels of dependencies:
> 
>  1- download dependencies
>  2- extract dependencies
>  3- prepare dependencies
>  4- configure dependencies

 I think your mixing two things here. The "prepare" that ThomasP is talking
about is really the PPD creation. The additional step for autoreconf or kconfig
is something else - it's a step with commands that are defined by the package
(infra).


 Regards,
 Arnout


> 
> Currently, 1, 2, and 4 are implemented in a generic way and thus
> available to all types of packages, while 3 is implemented only for
> kconfig-package, in an ad-hoc way, and used only by the linux kernel to
> ensure the toolchain is available before its kconfig is called.
> 
> Regards,
> Yann E. MORIN.
> 



More information about the buildroot mailing list