Re: [PATCH 0/5] refactor the archive*.bbcalss

[Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com>]

On 01/13/2014 07:58 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:52:49PM +0100, Henning Heinold wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 06:47:39PM +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/13/2014 06:21 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:20:14AM +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
>>>>> * The archive*.bbclass didn't work, and there were a few problems, for
>>>>>    example:
>>>>>    1) There were a few duplicated code
>>>>>    2) There was no src_dir.org (or orig), but the diff command still use
>>>>>       it, and it is not easy to fix this issue if we don't change a lot
>>>>>       of the code.
>>>>>    3) It didn't archive the source for the native or gcc
>>>>>    4) The work flow is not very well
>>>>>    5) The "subprocess.call('fakeroot cp xxxx'" should be removed
>>>>>    6) And others ...
>>>>>
>>>>> * So that we have to refactor it, the benefits are:
>>>>>    1) Fix the problems and make it work well.
>>>>>    2) Reduce more than 400 lines in total.
>>>>>    3) Make it easy to use.
>>>>
>>>> Have you seen
>>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2013-December/087729.html
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> Could you review it/integrate changes from it?
>>>
>>> I've looked at it just now, I think the problems that you mentioned have been
>>> fixed during the refactor. It won't install/remove the files manually any more,
>>> they will be installed/removed by the sstate. And the usage become easier, just
>>> this would be OK by default:
>>>
>>> INHERIT += "archiver"
>>>
>>> And we can easily add other functions when needed.
>>>
>>> // Robert
>>>
>>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> does the whole thread means it is broken in dora too? Are there plans to backport the patches?
>
> AFAIK it's broken everywhere, I would like to have it backported to
> dylan as well (after testing that it indeed fixes source files being
> removed)
>

Yes, Martin is right, but I'm not sure whether we should backport them
since we have change a lot of the code, and there should be bugs, usually,
though, I've done as many testing as I can.

BTW., I've updated the code a little in the PULL:

Use "1" or "0" rather than "yes" or "no", which seems more popular in oe,
for example:

ARCHIVER_MODE[dumpdata] = "1" (it was "yes" before).

// Robert


>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>