Buildroot Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [RFC v1 05/14] autotools infrastructure: do the autoreconf as a post patch step
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 17:27:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130127172748.29a8d6cf@skate> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <510452A9.4050805@mind.be>

Dear Arnout Vandecappelle,

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:03:21 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
> On 01/21/13 00:52, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > Doing the autoreconf step as a pre-configure hook doesn't work
> > properly, because the source directory is read-only during the
> > configure step. And in fact, the autoreconf process modifies the
> > source code, so it is quite logical to do it as part of the patching
> > process rather than the configuration process.
> 
>   It was in fact moved from POST_PATCH to PRE_CONFIGURE in commit 
> 89d1ad91fe4b1b65f0e902f94aba99a6cefbf631, and the PRE_CONFIGURE_HOOKS 
> were added specifically for this purpose. Unfortunately, the commit
> gives no explanation as to why it was needed.

Hum, right. Interesting. I've looked at the commits around this one,
and also the e-mails around the one through which this patch was
submitted, but it didn't give any clue. The other patches around are
version bumps and other, seemingly unrelated things.

It's even more disappointing that I was amongst the people giving a
Acked-by on this patch...

One reason that might explain this is the lack of ordering guarantees
on post patch hooks. For example, if you have a post patch hook that
applies Debian patches, and a post patch hook to do the autoreconf, you
quite certainly want the Debian patches hook to be executed before the
autoreconf hook. But I have absolutely no idea if this is the problem
that we were trying to fix here.

That said, I still believe that the autoreconf thing belongs to the
patch step. It is really a modification of the source code itself, and
it is common to both the target build and host build. So maybe the
autotools infrastructure needs a special hook in the generic
infrastructure (rather than a normal post patch hook), to ensure that
the autoreconf step gets executed after all post patch hooks?

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

  reply	other threads:[~2013-01-27 16:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-01-20 23:52 [Buildroot] [RFC v1] Prototype implementation of per-package out of tree build Thomas Petazzoni
2013-01-20 23:52 ` [Buildroot] [RFC v1 01/14] Add a new "src" directory in the output directory Thomas Petazzoni
2013-01-21 13:47   ` Jérôme Pouiller
2013-01-21 17:16     ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-01-22 10:15       ` Jérôme Pouiller
2013-01-22 16:49         ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-01-22 17:12           ` Jérôme Pouiller
2013-01-23 15:45             ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-01-24 10:34               ` Jérôme Pouiller
2013-01-20 23:52 ` [Buildroot] [RFC v1 02/14] package infrastructure: move subdir support to autotools Thomas Petazzoni
2013-01-20 23:52 ` [Buildroot] [RFC v1 03/14] generic infrastructure: out of tree build support Thomas Petazzoni
2013-01-24 21:41   ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2013-01-20 23:52 ` [Buildroot] [RFC v1 04/14] autotools infrastructure: support out of tree build Thomas Petazzoni
2013-01-24 21:57   ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2013-01-20 23:52 ` [Buildroot] [RFC v1 05/14] autotools infrastructure: do the autoreconf as a post patch step Thomas Petazzoni
2013-01-26 22:03   ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2013-01-27 16:27     ` Thomas Petazzoni [this message]
2013-01-27 22:18       ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2013-01-28  8:13         ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-01-20 23:52 ` [Buildroot] [RFC v1 06/14] cmake infrastructure: support out of tree build Thomas Petazzoni
2013-01-20 23:52 ` [Buildroot] [RFC v1 07/14] busybox: " Thomas Petazzoni
2013-01-20 23:52 ` [Buildroot] [RFC v1 08/14] mtd: " Thomas Petazzoni
2013-01-20 23:52 ` [Buildroot] [RFC v1 09/14] barebox: " Thomas Petazzoni
2013-01-20 23:52 ` [Buildroot] [RFC v1 10/14] uboot: " Thomas Petazzoni
2013-01-20 23:52 ` [Buildroot] [RFC v1 11/14] linux: " Thomas Petazzoni
2013-01-20 23:52 ` [Buildroot] [RFC v1 12/14] autoconf: fix out-of-tree build Thomas Petazzoni
2013-01-20 23:52 ` [Buildroot] [RFC v1 13/14] cmake: support out of tree build Thomas Petazzoni
2013-01-20 23:52 ` [Buildroot] [RFC v1 14/14] makedevs: " Thomas Petazzoni
2013-01-21  4:24 ` [Buildroot] [RFC v1] Prototype implementation of per-package out oftree build Przemyslaw Wrzos
2013-01-21 17:26   ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-01-21 18:51     ` Stephan Hoffmann
2013-01-24 20:12 ` [Buildroot] [RFC v1] Prototype implementation of per-package out of tree build Arnout Vandecappelle

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=20130127172748.29a8d6cf@skate \
    --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