[PATCH 1/1] image.bbclass: reactivate do_fetch, do_unpack and do_patch

[PATCH 1/1] image.bbclass: reactivate do_fetch, do_unpack and do_patch

[Geoffrey Levillain]

Running fetch/unpack/patch can be used to get some image-specific
configurations files to apply with a function in the
ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMAND variable.

Hence delete the "noexec" line corresponding to these tasks so we can
run them when needed.

Signed-off-by: Geoffrey Levillain <geoffrey.levillain@smile.fr>
---
 meta/classes/image.bbclass | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta/classes/image.bbclass b/meta/classes/image.bbclass
index 04fd5f9961..8b8ea40964 100644
--- a/meta/classes/image.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/image.bbclass
@@ -615,9 +615,6 @@ MULTILIBRE_ALLOW_REP =. "${base_bindir}|${base_sbindir}|${bindir}|${sbindir}|${l
 MULTILIB_CHECK_FILE = "${WORKDIR}/multilib_check.py"
 MULTILIB_TEMP_ROOTFS = "${WORKDIR}/multilib"
 
-do_fetch[noexec] = "1"
-do_unpack[noexec] = "1"
-do_patch[noexec] = "1"
 do_configure[noexec] = "1"
 do_compile[noexec] = "1"
 do_install[noexec] = "1"
-- 
2.11.0

Re: [PATCH 1/1] image.bbclass: reactivate do_fetch, do_unpack and do_patch

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2017-01-03 at 12:12 +0100, Geoffrey Levillain wrote:
> Running fetch/unpack/patch can be used to get some image-specific
> configurations files to apply with a function in the
> ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMAND variable.
> 
> Hence delete the "noexec" line corresponding to these tasks so we can
> run them when needed.

You could make this argument for the other noexec lines too and nothing
does this by default as far as I'm aware. Could you not do something
like:

python () {
    d.delVarFlag("do_fetch", "noexec")
}

in your specific recipes which need this?

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCH 1/1] image.bbclass: reactivate do_fetch, do_unpack and do_patch

[Geoffrey Levillain]

On 03/01/2017 12:49, Richard Purdie wrote :
> On Tue, 2017-01-03 at 12:12 +0100, Geoffrey Levillain wrote:
>> Running fetch/unpack/patch can be used to get some image-specific
>> configurations files to apply with a function in the
>> ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMAND variable.
>>
>> Hence delete the "noexec" line corresponding to these tasks so we can
>> run them when needed.
> You could make this argument for the other noexec lines too and nothing
> does this by default as far as I'm aware. Could you not do something
> like:
>
> python () {
>      d.delVarFlag("do_fetch", "noexec")
> }
>
> in your specific recipes which need this?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard

Other noexec lines are more related to program compilation,
I think that fetch configuration files to apply is a more generic case
for images.

The argument could work for do_install but there is a risk of overwrite
with other version of same config files, image-specific configuration
must be on higher priority, so there is a need to install them after
every other task (to eventually overwrite less specific config. files).

I could do the delVarFlag thing but I think that fetch image-specific file
is generic, and that the noexec flag here doesn't save much time anyway.

Regards,

Geoffrey Levillain

Re: [PATCH 1/1] image.bbclass: reactivate do_fetch, do_unpack and do_patch

[Geoffrey Levillain]

On 03/01/2017 14:23, Geoffrey Levillain wrote :
> On 03/01/2017 12:49, Richard Purdie wrote :
>> On Tue, 2017-01-03 at 12:12 +0100, Geoffrey Levillain wrote:
>>> Running fetch/unpack/patch can be used to get some image-specific
>>> configurations files to apply with a function in the
>>> ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMAND variable.
>>>
>>> Hence delete the "noexec" line corresponding to these tasks so we can
>>> run them when needed.
>> You could make this argument for the other noexec lines too and nothing
>> does this by default as far as I'm aware. Could you not do something
>> like:
>>
>> python () {
>>      d.delVarFlag("do_fetch", "noexec")
>> }
>>
>> in your specific recipes which need this?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>
> Other noexec lines are more related to program compilation,
> I think that fetch configuration files to apply is a more generic case
> for images.
>
> The argument could work for do_install but there is a risk of overwrite
> with other version of same config files, image-specific configuration
> must be on higher priority, so there is a need to install them after
> every other task (to eventually overwrite less specific config. files).
>
> I could do the delVarFlag thing but I think that fetch image-specific 
> file
> is generic, and that the noexec flag here doesn't save much time anyway.
>
> Regards,
>
> Geoffrey Levillain
Is the patch still "on hold", or is it "dropped" ?


Regards,

Geoffrey Levillain