All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [RFC] Package infrastructure: make variables or make targets ?
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:14:45 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091103091445.07b50723@surf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1257110818.2515.67.camel@coalu.atr>

Hello,

Thanks Lionel for your feedback.

Le Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:26:58 +0100,
Lionel Landwerlin <llandwerlin@gmail.com> a ?crit :

> First thanks for your work. I like it much, it makes package's
> makefiles a lot more clean.

Thanks :)

> I have little question about the autotool stuff. I seen that the
> patching and the autoreconf steps has been merged together. Is it
> because you did not finish yet or do you plan keep it like that ?

I was planning to keep it like that, but if it's not satisfying, we can
probably find ways to improve it.

The generic package infrastructure, in package/Makefile.package.in [1]
is not supposed to know anything about autotools. Therefore, it
implements a set of generic steps :

 * Download
 * Extract
 * Patch
 * Configure
 * Build
 * Host installation
 * Target installation
 * Staging installation
 * Clean
 * Uninstall

? autoreconf ? is *not* one of these steps because it is autotools
specific.

Then, the package/Makefile.autotools.in [2] ? inherits ? from this
package infrastructure by :

 * Providing a definition for the Configure, Build, Host installation,
   Target installation, Staging installation, Clean and Uninstall
   steps ;

 * Add hooks for autoreconf and libtool patching. The autoreconf hook
   is attached to the $(PKG)_POST_PATCH_HOOKS hook point, and is
   therefore included into the generic ? Patch ? step in terms of stamp
   files and dependencies

Considering this more or less clean separation between generic
infrastructure and autotools infrastructure, I'd like (if possible) to
keep autotools-specific things outside the generic infrastructure.

> I'm asking that because I'm using buildroot more as a development tool
> than a rootfs generation tool. I try to work upstream with packages
> I'm hacking on. A few days ago I sent a patch to allow to retrigger
> some part of the build process on a particular package
> (http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2009-October/030104.html).
> It currently only work with "autotooled" packages, but with you
> ongoing work it will be easier to provide that feature on all
> packages.
> 
> So to me, it is important to separate the patching from the
> autoreconfiguring part, because when adding new source files to an
> autotooled package there is a need to regenerate the Makefile.in files
> without repatching.

Would attaching the autoreconf hook to a
(not-yet-existing-but-easily-created) $(PKG)_PRE_CONFIGURE_HOOKS hook
point solve the problem ?

Sincerly,

Thomas

[1]
http://git.buildroot.net/~tpetazzoni/git/buildroot/tree/package/Makefile.package.in?h=package-infrastructure

[2]
http://git.buildroot.net/~tpetazzoni/git/buildroot/tree/package/Makefile.autotools.in?h=package-infrastructure
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers and embedded Linux development,
consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

  reply	other threads:[~2009-11-03  8:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-10-25 21:40 [Buildroot] [RFC] Package infrastructure: make variables or make targets ? Thomas Petazzoni
2009-10-25 23:51 ` Lionel Landwerlin
2009-10-26  8:35   ` Thomas Petazzoni
2009-10-27  8:06 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2009-10-29 15:39   ` Thomas Petazzoni
2009-10-29 17:11     ` H Hartley Sweeten
2009-10-29 21:01       ` Lionel Landwerlin
2009-10-29 17:41     ` Will Newton
2009-11-02 23:24     ` Thomas Petazzoni
2009-11-03  1:14       ` Lionel Landwerlin
2009-11-03  8:15         ` Thomas Petazzoni
2009-11-01 21:26   ` Lionel Landwerlin
2009-11-03  8:14     ` Thomas Petazzoni [this message]
2009-11-03 14:01       ` Lionel Landwerlin
2009-10-29 15:42 ` Thomas Petazzoni

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20091103091445.07b50723@surf \
    --to=thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com \
    --cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.