[Buildroot] Are skel.tar.gz and target_skeleton folder duplicates ?

[Buildroot] Are skel.tar.gz and target_skeleton folder duplicates ?

[Benjamin Delagoutte]

Hi,

While working on writing a device profile for Buildroot, I noticed Buildroot
uses both a tarball (skel.tar.gz) and a folder (target_skeleton) to build
the rootfs tree structure.

As far as I understand, the tarball is first extracted, then we copy files
found in target_skeleton to the resulting tree.

$(TARGET_DIR):
        if [ -f "$(TARGET_SKELETON)" ] ; then \
                $(ZCAT) $(TARGET_SKELETON) | tar -C $(BUILD_DIR) -xf -; \
        fi;
        if [ -d "$(TARGET_SKEL_DIR)" ] ; then \
                cp -fa $(TARGET_SKEL_DIR)/* $(TARGET_DIR)/; \
        fi;
        touch $(STAGING_DIR)/.fakeroot.00000
        -find $(TARGET_DIR) -type d -name CVS | xargs rm -rf
        -find $(TARGET_DIR) -type d -name .svn | xargs rm -rf

Eventually I don't really understand why Buildroot makes use of two
different prebuilt trees. Do someone mind explaining me the goals of this
weird strategy ?

Thank you.

Benjamin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://busybox.net/lists/buildroot/attachments/20061113/74dff4d1/attachment.htm 

[Buildroot] Are skel.tar.gz and target_skeleton folder duplicates ?

[Erik Andersen]

On Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 03:54:22PM +0100, Benjamin Delagoutte wrote:
> Eventually I don't really understand why Buildroot makes use of
> two different prebuilt trees. Do someone mind explaining me the
> goals of this weird strategy ?

We used to use CVS as our revision control system.  CVS refused
to store and restore empty directories and symlinks.  As a result
we ended up using a tarball for these items rather than a simple
directory full of stuff.  But using a tarball proved to be a real
pain, since using a tarball to store files which tend to be
modified (such as the stuff under /etc for example) is unwieldly
at best.  So I created the current hybrid approach.

Subversion is a much more sane revision control system, so I
think we can probably consolidate things now.

	<sound of hacking in the distance>

Fixed.  Thanks for bringing this up.

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen             http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--

[Buildroot] Are skel.tar.gz and target_skeleton folder duplicates ?

[Benjamin Delagoutte]

Thank you for having cleared things.

2006/11/15, Erik Andersen <andersen@codepoet.org>:
>
> On Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 03:54:22PM +0100, Benjamin Delagoutte wrote:
> > Eventually I don't really understand why Buildroot makes use of
> > two different prebuilt trees. Do someone mind explaining me the
> > goals of this weird strategy ?
>
> We used to use CVS as our revision control system.  CVS refused
> to store and restore empty directories and symlinks.  As a result
> we ended up using a tarball for these items rather than a simple
> directory full of stuff.  But using a tarball proved to be a real
> pain, since using a tarball to store files which tend to be
> modified (such as the stuff under /etc for example) is unwieldly
> at best.  So I created the current hybrid approach.
>
> Subversion is a much more sane revision control system, so I
> think we can probably consolidate things now.
>
>         <sound of hacking in the distance>
>
> Fixed.  Thanks for bringing this up.
>
> -Erik
>
> --
> Erik B. Andersen             http://codepoet-consulting.com/
> --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://busybox.net/lists/buildroot/attachments/20061115/efed4cf6/attachment.html