[Buildroot] x11r7 created $(BUILD_DIR)/<package-dir>/.stamp_downloaded

[Buildroot] x11r7 created $(BUILD_DIR)/<package-dir>/.stamp_downloaded

[Ulf Samuelsson]

The Makefile seems to create this file to indicate that it 
had downloaded the source code.
The $(BUILD_DIR) becomes really crowded this way.

I Think we should modify this so that the Makefile
checks for the existance of the source file in $(DL_DIR)
like most other packages.
Tried, (see patch below), but the rule:

+$(DL_DIR)/$$($(PKG)_SOURCE):
        $(call MESSAGE,"Downloading")
        test -e $(DL_DIR)/$($(PKG)_SOURCE) || $(WGET) -P $(DL_DIR)
$($(PKG)_SITE)/$($(PKG)_SOURCE)
        mkdir -p $(@D)

fails (is not found) so I had to add 

+$$($(2)_TARGET_SOURCE):
+       $(WGET) -P $(DL_DIR) $$($(2)_SITE)/$$($(2)_SOURCE)
+

to make it work.
Anyone got a clue why the first rule fails?


Maybe we should also consider building x11r7 in $(BUILD_DIR)/x11r7
due to crowding.


Index: package/Makefile.autotools.in
===================================================================
--- package/Makefile.autotools.in       (revision 19425)
+++ package/Makefile.autotools.in       (arbetskopia)
@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@

################################################################################
 
 # Retrieve and unpack the archive
-$(BUILD_DIR)/%/.stamp_downloaded:
+$(DL_DIR)/$$($(PKG)_SOURCE):
        $(call MESSAGE,"Downloading")
        test -e $(DL_DIR)/$($(PKG)_SOURCE) || $(WGET) -P $(DL_DIR)
$($(PKG)_SITE)/$($(PKG)_SOURCE)
        mkdir -p $(@D)
@@ -279,7 +279,7 @@
 $(2)_TARGET_AUTORECONF =       $$($(2)_DIR)/.stamp_autoconfigured
 $(2)_TARGET_PATCH =            $$($(2)_DIR)/.stamp_patched
 $(2)_TARGET_EXTRACT =          $$($(2)_DIR)/.stamp_extracted
-$(2)_TARGET_SOURCE =           $$($(2)_DIR)/.stamp_downloaded
+$(2)_TARGET_SOURCE =           $$(DL_DIR)/$$($(2)_SOURCE)
 $(2)_TARGET_UNINSTALL =                $$($(2)_DIR)/.stamp_uninstalled
 $(2)_TARGET_CLEAN =            $$($(2)_DIR)/.stamp_cleaned
 $(2)_TARGET_DIRCLEAN =         $$($(2)_DIR)/.stamp_dircleaned
@@ -322,6 +322,9 @@
 
 $(1)-depends:          $(1)-source $$($(2)_DEPENDANCIES)
 
+$$($(2)_TARGET_SOURCE):
+       $(WGET) -P $(DL_DIR) $$($(2)_SITE)/$$($(2)_SOURCE)
+
 $(1)-source:           $$($(2)_TARGET_SOURCE)
 
 # non-build targets


Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson

[Buildroot] x11r7 created $(BUILD_DIR)/<package-dir>/.stamp_downloaded

[Benjamin Tietz]

On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 10:29:31PM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> The Makefile seems to create this file to indicate that it 
> had downloaded the source code.
> The $(BUILD_DIR) becomes really crowded this way.

[Buildroot] x11r7 created $(BUILD_DIR)/<package-dir>/.stamp_downloaded

[Ulf Samuelsson]

tis 2007-08-14 klockan 16:20 +0200 skrev Benjamin Tietz:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 10:29:31PM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> > The Makefile seems to create this file to indicate that it 
> > had downloaded the source code.
> > The $(BUILD_DIR) becomes really crowded this way.
> From this one file, I see.
> > 

Every package downloaded by make source, 
creates a directory in $(BUILD_DIR)
- And just to have a storage location for the
"<PACKAGE>/.stamp_downloaded".


> > I Think we should modify this so that the Makefile
> > checks for the existance of the source file in $(DL_DIR)
> > like most other packages.
> > Tried, (see patch below), but the rule:
> > 
> > +$(DL_DIR)/$$($(PKG)_SOURCE):
> >         $(call MESSAGE,"Downloading")
> >         test -e $(DL_DIR)/$($(PKG)_SOURCE) || $(WGET) -P $(DL_DIR)
> > $($(PKG)_SITE)/$($(PKG)_SOURCE)
> >         mkdir -p $(@D)
> Mainly because of the way, make handles variables. They get
> expanded,when the makefile is parsed. Even the doubled dollarsign can't
> help you here.
> 
> > 
> > fails (is not found) so I had to add 
> > 
> > +$$($(2)_TARGET_SOURCE):
> > +       $(WGET) -P $(DL_DIR) $$($(2)_SITE)/$$($(2)_SOURCE)
> > +
> > 
> In the macro it gets evaluated every time any package wants it to use.
> Does that really pays the one unneeded stamp-file?
> 

No 50-100 new directories in $(BUILD_DIR) 
(I didn't count)

> > to make it work.
> > Anyone got a clue why the first rule fails?
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe we should also consider building x11r7 in $(BUILD_DIR)/x11r7
> > due to crowding.
> You even get afraid of crowding, aren't you?
> > 

NO, pissed off...
I like all/most of the folders to fit into one window w/o scrolling.

BR
Ulf Samuelsson

[Buildroot] x11r7 created $(BUILD_DIR)/<package-dir>/.stamp_downloaded

[Benjamin Tietz]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 08:30:07PM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> tis 2007-08-14 klockan 16:20 +0200 skrev Benjamin Tietz:
> > On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 10:29:31PM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> > > The Makefile seems to create this file to indicate that it 
> > > had downloaded the source code.
> > > The $(BUILD_DIR) becomes really crowded this way.
> > From this one file, I see.
> > > 
> 
> Every package downloaded by make source, 
> creates a directory in $(BUILD_DIR)
> - And just to have a storage location for the
> "<PACKAGE>/.stamp_downloaded".
not just for this one file, the directory will also used far all other
stamp-files as well as a target for the unpacked source, their build and
so on
> 
> 
> > > I Think we should modify this so that the Makefile
> > > checks for the existance of the source file in $(DL_DIR)
> > > like most other packages.
> > > Tried, (see patch below), but the rule:
> > > 
> > > +$(DL_DIR)/$$($(PKG)_SOURCE):
> > >         $(call MESSAGE,"Downloading")
> > >         test -e $(DL_DIR)/$($(PKG)_SOURCE) || $(WGET) -P $(DL_DIR)
> > > $($(PKG)_SITE)/$($(PKG)_SOURCE)
> > >         mkdir -p $(@D)
> > Mainly because of the way, make handles variables. They get
> > expanded,when the makefile is parsed. Even the doubled dollarsign can't
> > help you here.
> > 
> > > 
> > > fails (is not found) so I had to add 
> > > 
> > > +$$($(2)_TARGET_SOURCE):
> > > +       $(WGET) -P $(DL_DIR) $$($(2)_SITE)/$$($(2)_SOURCE)
> > > +
> > > 
> > In the macro it gets evaluated every time any package wants it to use.
> > Does that really pays the one unneeded stamp-file?
> > 
> 
> No 50-100 new directories in $(BUILD_DIR) 
> (I didn't count)
You will get them anyway, when you build the package.
> 
> > > to make it work.
> > > Anyone got a clue why the first rule fails?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Maybe we should also consider building x11r7 in $(BUILD_DIR)/x11r7
> > > due to crowding.
> > You even get afraid of crowding, aren't you?
> > > 
> 
> NO, pissed off...
> I like all/most of the folders to fit into one window w/o scrolling.
What about changing your view to list? 
> 
> BR
> Ulf Samuelsson
> 
> 
> 

[Buildroot] x11r7 created$(BUILD_DIR)/<package-dir>/.stamp_downloaded

[Ulf Samuelsson]

> On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 08:30:07PM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>> tis 2007-08-14 klockan 16:20 +0200 skrev Benjamin Tietz:
>> > On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 10:29:31PM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>> > > The Makefile seems to create this file to indicate that it 
>> > > had downloaded the source code.
>> > > The $(BUILD_DIR) becomes really crowded this way.
>> > From this one file, I see.
>> > > 
>> 
>> Every package downloaded by make source, 
>> creates a directory in $(BUILD_DIR)
>> - And just to have a storage location for the
>> "<PACKAGE>/.stamp_downloaded".
> not just for this one file, the directory will also used far all other
> stamp-files as well as a target for the unpacked source, their build and
> so on
>> 

Yes if you select to use them, but if you enable everything
and "make sources" to have sources handy, just in case you need them,
then you get the directory anyway.
My access to Internet varies from 100 Mbps at home, and
to 50 kbps when I only have access to a Modem,
and downloading stuff in advance makes sense.

This is not how packages behave at the  moment, and introducing
this, just to store a stamp  is a real bad idea.
It is much better to use the fact that the tarball exist
or even to  store "downloaded" stamps in a dedicated directory
hidden away in some obscure place.

BR
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson