[Buildroot] Makefile.autotools.in does not work well with projects

[Buildroot] Makefile.autotools.in does not work well with projects

[Hans-Christian Egtvedt]

The Makefile.autotools.in uses a rule which touches a
stamp_target_installed file, this does not work well with projects.

The Makefile should depend on a file on the target root file system,
file not there => install to target again.

-- 
With kind regards,
Hans-Christian Egtvedt, Applications Engineer

[Buildroot] Makefile.autotools.in does not work well with projects

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 04:43:09PM +0200, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
> The Makefile.autotools.in uses a rule which touches a
> stamp_target_installed file, this does not work well with projects.
> 
> The Makefile should depend on a file on the target root file system,
> file not there => install to target again.

Indeed - install stamps are pure evil. They don't work with multiple
projects and they mean you can't "rm -rf
project_build_$(ARCH)/$(PROJECT)/root".


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>

[Buildroot] Makefile.autotools.in does not work wellwith projects

[Ulf Samuelsson]

Subject: Re: [Buildroot] Makefile.autotools.in does not work wellwith 
projects


> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 04:43:09PM +0200, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
>> The Makefile.autotools.in uses a rule which touches a
>> stamp_target_installed file, this does not work well with projects.
>>
>> The Makefile should depend on a file on the target root file system,
>> file not there => install to target again.
>
> Indeed - install stamps are pure evil. They don't work with multiple
> projects and they mean you can't "rm -rf
> project_build_$(ARCH)/$(PROJECT)/root".
>
>

I do not think that you want to have install stamps in the root file system
because they will end up in the target (unless they are ignored when
the rootfs is created).

You could have install stamps in a 
"project_build_$(ARCH)/$(PROJECT)/.stamps"
directory. Of course you would have to remember to delete this directory
when you delete  "project_build_$(ARCH)/$(PROJECT)/root"

Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson

[Buildroot] Makefile.autotools.in does not work wellwith projects

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 08:53:43AM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> Subject: Re: [Buildroot] Makefile.autotools.in does not work wellwith  
> projects
>
>
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 04:43:09PM +0200, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
>>> The Makefile.autotools.in uses a rule which touches a
>>> stamp_target_installed file, this does not work well with projects.
>>>
>>> The Makefile should depend on a file on the target root file system,
>>> file not there => install to target again.
>>
>> Indeed - install stamps are pure evil. They don't work with multiple
>> projects and they mean you can't "rm -rf
>> project_build_$(ARCH)/$(PROJECT)/root".
>
> I do not think that you want to have install stamps in the root file system
> because they will end up in the target (unless they are ignored when
> the rootfs is created).

I don't think you should use stamps at all - test for a target file
instead.


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>

[Buildroot] Makefile.autotools.in does not work wellwith projects

[Hans-Christian Egtvedt]

On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 11:33 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 08:53:43AM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> > Subject: Re: [Buildroot] Makefile.autotools.in does not work wellwith  
> > projects
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 04:43:09PM +0200, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
> >>> The Makefile.autotools.in uses a rule which touches a
> >>> stamp_target_installed file, this does not work well with projects.
> >>>
> >>> The Makefile should depend on a file on the target root file system,
> >>> file not there => install to target again.
> >>
> >> Indeed - install stamps are pure evil. They don't work with multiple
> >> projects and they mean you can't "rm -rf
> >> project_build_$(ARCH)/$(PROJECT)/root".
> >
> > I do not think that you want to have install stamps in the root file system
> > because they will end up in the target (unless they are ignored when
> > the rootfs is created).
> 
> I don't think you should use stamps at all - test for a target file
> instead.
> 

Yes, something in the order of a must defined variable pointing to
$(TARGET_DIR)/$(FOO_TARGET_INSTALLED_FILE) ?

I tried jugling the Makefile magic, but I was not able to generate a
nice dotfile in the $(PROJECT_BUILD_DIR). See the patch below, 0.02 ? to
anybody who can spot what I do wrong.

-- 
With kind regards,
Hans-Christian Egtvedt, Applications Engineer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: makefile-autotools-in.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1889 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://busybox.net/lists/buildroot/attachments/20080728/9659faa4/attachment.bin 

[Buildroot] Makefile.autotools.in does not work wellwith projects

[Hans-Christian Egtvedt]

On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 11:33 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 08:53:43AM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> > Subject: Re: [Buildroot] Makefile.autotools.in does not work wellwith  
> > projects
> >
> >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 04:43:09PM +0200, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
> >>> The Makefile.autotools.in uses a rule which touches a
> >>> stamp_target_installed file, this does not work well with projects.
> >>>
> >>> The Makefile should depend on a file on the target root file system,
> >>> file not there => install to target again.
> >>
> >> Indeed - install stamps are pure evil. They don't work with multiple
> >> projects and they mean you can't "rm -rf
> >> project_build_$(ARCH)/$(PROJECT)/root".
> >
> > I do not think that you want to have install stamps in the root file system
> > because they will end up in the target (unless they are ignored when
> > the rootfs is created).
> 
> I don't think you should use stamps at all - test for a target file
> instead.
> 

And two minutes later I have a RFC for this solution, see attached
patch.

-- 
With kind regards,
Hans-Christian Egtvedt, Applications Engineer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: makefile-autotools-in.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1493 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://busybox.net/lists/buildroot/attachments/20080728/5703bd59/attachment.bin 

[Buildroot] Makefile.autotools.in does not work wellwith projects

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:42:37AM +0200, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 11:33 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 08:53:43AM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> > > Subject: Re: [Buildroot] Makefile.autotools.in does not work wellwith  
> > > projects
> > >
> > >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 04:43:09PM +0200, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
> > >>> The Makefile.autotools.in uses a rule which touches a
> > >>> stamp_target_installed file, this does not work well with projects.
> > >>>
> > >>> The Makefile should depend on a file on the target root file system,
> > >>> file not there => install to target again.
> > >>
> > >> Indeed - install stamps are pure evil. They don't work with multiple
> > >> projects and they mean you can't "rm -rf
> > >> project_build_$(ARCH)/$(PROJECT)/root".
> > >
> > > I do not think that you want to have install stamps in the root file system
> > > because they will end up in the target (unless they are ignored when
> > > the rootfs is created).
> > 
> > I don't think you should use stamps at all - test for a target file
> > instead.
> 
> And two minutes later I have a RFC for this solution, see attached
> patch.
[..]
>  # Install to target dir
> -$(BUILD_DIR)/%/.stamp_target_installed:
> +$(TARGET_DIR)/%/$($($(PKG)_NAME)_TARGET_INSTALLED_TOUCH_FILE):
>  	$(call MESSAGE,"Installing to target")
> -	$($(PKG)_MAKE_ENV) $(MAKE) $($(PKG)_INSTALL_TARGET_OPT) -C $(@D)/$($(PKG)_SUBDIR)
> +	$($(PKG)_MAKE_ENV) $(MAKE) $($(PKG)_INSTALL_TARGET_OPT) -C $($(PKG)_DIR)/$($(PKG)_SUBDIR)
[..]
>  # define sub-target stamps
> -$(2)_TARGET_INSTALL_TARGET =	$$($(2)_DIR)/.stamp_target_installed
> +$(2)_TARGET_INSTALL_TARGET =	$$(TARGET_DIR)/$$($(2)_TARGET_INSTALLED_TOUCH_FILE)

Will every package that uses Makefile.autotools.in need to be modified
to define the target installed file? If so, would you like to prepare a
large patch? :) Alternatively, perhaps $(2)_TARGET_INSTALL_TARGET could
be fall back to the old definition if the new variable is not supplied,
using some ifeq logic.

Thanks for working on this!
Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>

[Buildroot] Makefile.autotools.in does not work wellwith projects

[Hans-Christian Egtvedt]

On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 18:50 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:42:37AM +0200, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 11:33 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:

<snipp>

> > And two minutes later I have a RFC for this solution, see attached
> > patch.
> [..]
> >  # Install to target dir
> > -$(BUILD_DIR)/%/.stamp_target_installed:
> > +$(TARGET_DIR)/%/$($($(PKG)_NAME)_TARGET_INSTALLED_TOUCH_FILE):
> >  	$(call MESSAGE,"Installing to target")
> > -	$($(PKG)_MAKE_ENV) $(MAKE) $($(PKG)_INSTALL_TARGET_OPT) -C $(@D)/$($(PKG)_SUBDIR)
> > +	$($(PKG)_MAKE_ENV) $(MAKE) $($(PKG)_INSTALL_TARGET_OPT) -C $($(PKG)_DIR)/$($(PKG)_SUBDIR)
> [..]
> >  # define sub-target stamps
> > -$(2)_TARGET_INSTALL_TARGET =	$$($(2)_DIR)/.stamp_target_installed
> > +$(2)_TARGET_INSTALL_TARGET =	$$(TARGET_DIR)/$$($(2)_TARGET_INSTALLED_TOUCH_FILE)
> 
> Will every package that uses Makefile.autotools.in need to be modified
> to define the target installed file? If so, would you like to prepare a
> large patch? :)

Not really, since I do not have knowledge about each package and what
they will need to depend on installed on target.

> Alternatively, perhaps $(2)_TARGET_INSTALL_TARGET could
> be fall back to the old definition if the new variable is not supplied,
> using some ifeq logic.
> 

Yes, there should be a fallback when the variable is not supplied. The
Makefile should print a warning message as well, demanding an update ;)

I'll see what I can figure out.

-- 
With kind regards,
Hans-Christian Egtvedt, Applications Engineer

[Buildroot] Makefile.autotools.in does not work wellwith projects

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:52:41AM +0200, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
>On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 18:50 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:42:37AM +0200, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 11:33 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
><snipp>
>
>> > And two minutes later I have a RFC for this solution, see attached
>> > patch.
>> [..]
>> >  # Install to target dir
>> > -$(BUILD_DIR)/%/.stamp_target_installed:
>> > +$(TARGET_DIR)/%/$($($(PKG)_NAME)_TARGET_INSTALLED_TOUCH_FILE):
>> >  	$(call MESSAGE,"Installing to target")
>> > -	$($(PKG)_MAKE_ENV) $(MAKE) $($(PKG)_INSTALL_TARGET_OPT) -C $(@D)/$($(PKG)_SUBDIR)
>> > +	$($(PKG)_MAKE_ENV) $(MAKE) $($(PKG)_INSTALL_TARGET_OPT) -C $($(PKG)_DIR)/$($(PKG)_SUBDIR)
>> [..]
>> >  # define sub-target stamps
>> > -$(2)_TARGET_INSTALL_TARGET =	$$($(2)_DIR)/.stamp_target_installed
>> > +$(2)_TARGET_INSTALL_TARGET =	$$(TARGET_DIR)/$$($(2)_TARGET_INSTALLED_TOUCH_FILE)
>> 
>> Will every package that uses Makefile.autotools.in need to be modified
>> to define the target installed file? If so, would you like to prepare a
>> large patch? :)
>
>Not really, since I do not have knowledge about each package and what
>they will need to depend on installed on target.
>
>> Alternatively, perhaps $(2)_TARGET_INSTALL_TARGET could
>> be fall back to the old definition if the new variable is not supplied,
>> using some ifeq logic.
>> 
>
>Yes, there should be a fallback when the variable is not supplied. The
>Makefile should print a warning message as well, demanding an update ;)
>
>I'll see what I can figure out.

Let me suggest to rename that variable to $(2)_TARGET_FILES
and do
$(2)_TARGET_INSTALL_TARGET = $(firstword $($(2)_TARGET_FILES))

foo_tmp=$(firstword $($(2)_TARGET_FILES))
or somthing like $(if $(foo_tmp),$(foo_tmp),$($(2).old_stamp_file))

Reasoning:
You really want to only have a few files in $(TARGET_DIR) as opposed to
$(STAGING_DIR). Those $(2)_TARGET_FILES should ideally be the only files
installed into the final image (think of a gazillion superfluous termcap
entries or other unneeded files).

[Buildroot] Makefile.autotools.in does not work wellwith projects

[Hans-Christian Egtvedt]

On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 12:19 +0200, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:52:41AM +0200, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
> >On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 18:50 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:42:37AM +0200, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 11:33 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >
> ><snipp>
> >
> >> > And two minutes later I have a RFC for this solution, see attached
> >> > patch.
> >> [..]
> >> >  # Install to target dir
> >> > -$(BUILD_DIR)/%/.stamp_target_installed:
> >> > +$(TARGET_DIR)/%/$($($(PKG)_NAME)_TARGET_INSTALLED_TOUCH_FILE):
> >> >  	$(call MESSAGE,"Installing to target")
> >> > -	$($(PKG)_MAKE_ENV) $(MAKE) $($(PKG)_INSTALL_TARGET_OPT) -C $(@D)/$($(PKG)_SUBDIR)
> >> > +	$($(PKG)_MAKE_ENV) $(MAKE) $($(PKG)_INSTALL_TARGET_OPT) -C $($(PKG)_DIR)/$($(PKG)_SUBDIR)
> >> [..]
> >> >  # define sub-target stamps
> >> > -$(2)_TARGET_INSTALL_TARGET =	$$($(2)_DIR)/.stamp_target_installed
> >> > +$(2)_TARGET_INSTALL_TARGET =	$$(TARGET_DIR)/$$($(2)_TARGET_INSTALLED_TOUCH_FILE)
> >> 
> >> Will every package that uses Makefile.autotools.in need to be modified
> >> to define the target installed file? If so, would you like to prepare a
> >> large patch? :)
> >
> >Not really, since I do not have knowledge about each package and what
> >they will need to depend on installed on target.
> >
> >> Alternatively, perhaps $(2)_TARGET_INSTALL_TARGET could
> >> be fall back to the old definition if the new variable is not supplied,
> >> using some ifeq logic.
> >> 
> >
> >Yes, there should be a fallback when the variable is not supplied. The
> >Makefile should print a warning message as well, demanding an update ;)
> >
> >I'll see what I can figure out.
> 
> Let me suggest to rename that variable to $(2)_TARGET_FILES
> and do
> $(2)_TARGET_INSTALL_TARGET = $(firstword $($(2)_TARGET_FILES))
> 
> foo_tmp=$(firstword $($(2)_TARGET_FILES))
> or somthing like $(if $(foo_tmp),$(foo_tmp),$($(2).old_stamp_file))
> 
> Reasoning:
> You really want to only have a few files in $(TARGET_DIR) as opposed to
> $(STAGING_DIR). Those $(2)_TARGET_FILES should ideally be the only files
> installed into the final image (think of a gazillion superfluous termcap
> entries or other unneeded files).

Then you need to overwrite the install rule anyway, my patch was
intended to fix the general installation of applications.

You seem to want a rule which will install only the binaries needed?

Some applications and libraries are actually installed quite minimal and
correct by using make DESTDIR install :)

-- 
With kind regards,
Hans-Christian Egtvedt, Applications Engineer

[Buildroot] Makefile.autotools.in does not work wellwith projects

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 08:31:54AM +0200, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:

>> Let me suggest to rename that variable to $(2)_TARGET_FILES
>> and do
>> $(2)_TARGET_INSTALL_TARGET = $(firstword $($(2)_TARGET_FILES))
>> 
>> foo_tmp=$(firstword $($(2)_TARGET_FILES))
>> or somthing like $(if $(foo_tmp),$(foo_tmp),$($(2).old_stamp_file))
>> 
>> Reasoning:
>> You really want to only have a few files in $(TARGET_DIR) as opposed to
>> $(STAGING_DIR). Those $(2)_TARGET_FILES should ideally be the only files
>> installed into the final image (think of a gazillion superfluous termcap
>> entries or other unneeded files).
>
>Then you need to overwrite the install rule anyway, my patch was
>intended to fix the general installation of applications.
>
>You seem to want a rule which will install only the binaries needed?

Yes. Ideally only the needed files should end on the target.
>
>Some applications and libraries are actually installed quite minimal and
>correct by using make DESTDIR install :)

true, but for those who don't, such target files should be used.

[Buildroot] Makefile.autotools.in does not work wellwith projects

[Hans-Christian Egtvedt]

On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 10:54 +0200, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 08:31:54AM +0200, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
> 
> >> Let me suggest to rename that variable to $(2)_TARGET_FILES
> >> and do
> >> $(2)_TARGET_INSTALL_TARGET = $(firstword $($(2)_TARGET_FILES))
> >> 
> >> foo_tmp=$(firstword $($(2)_TARGET_FILES))
> >> or somthing like $(if $(foo_tmp),$(foo_tmp),$($(2).old_stamp_file))
> >> 
> >> Reasoning:
> >> You really want to only have a few files in $(TARGET_DIR) as opposed to
> >> $(STAGING_DIR). Those $(2)_TARGET_FILES should ideally be the only files
> >> installed into the final image (think of a gazillion superfluous termcap
> >> entries or other unneeded files).
> >
> >Then you need to overwrite the install rule anyway, my patch was
> >intended to fix the general installation of applications.
> >
> >You seem to want a rule which will install only the binaries needed?
> 
> Yes. Ideally only the needed files should end on the target.

My patch was intended to fix a bug/problem with the
Makefile.autotools.in, while your suggestion is more an enhancement.

It is indeed nice to have a list of files to install, but my patch does
not try to solve that problem.

I do not think it is strait forward to solve your suggestion either.

> >
> >Some applications and libraries are actually installed quite minimal and
> >correct by using make DESTDIR install :)
> 
> true, but for those who don't, such target files should be used.

The install to target rule also strips away any installed header files,
man pages and doc if you select to not have header files on target. So
it is quite sane for most packages.

-- 
With kind regards,
Hans-Christian Egtvedt, Applications Engineer