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
next prev parent 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox