From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann E. MORIN Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 23:52:18 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH V4 2/2] i.MX: Update versions to match latest Freescale release In-Reply-To: <52FC2750.7000602@boundarydevices.com> References: <1381287931-7070-1-git-send-email-eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> <1381287931-7070-3-git-send-email-eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> <20140212190351.GD17804@free.fr> <52FBC72D.3090706@boundarydevices.com> <52FBD772.40900@boundarydevices.com> <20140212234144.GE17804@free.fr> <52FC2750.7000602@boundarydevices.com> Message-ID: <20140213225218.GC3259@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Eric, All, On 2014-02-12 19:00 -0700, Eric Nelson spake thusly: > On 02/12/2014 04:41 PM, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > >However, The cleanest in my opinion would be to extract the archive into > >a subdir of $(@D), like: > > > > # Blurb about auto-extract in a properly-named dir > > define IMX_LIB_EXTRACT_CMDS > > cd $(@D); \ > > sh $(DL_DIR)/$(IMX_LIB_SOURCE) --force --auto-accept > > And then move them? > i.e. > mv $(@D)/packagemname/* $(@D)/ > rm -r $(@D)/packagemname/ No, we would not need to move it. We'd just use it as-is in the following commands, like I showed below: > > define IMX_LIB_BUILD_CMDS > > $(IMX_LIB_MAKE_ENV) $(MAKE1) -C $(@D)/imx-lib-$(FREESCALE_IMX_VERSION) > > endef > It seems like over-kill to keep the directory around. Well, maybe not overkill, but not-so-clean, yes. > And what about the patch step references? Boom! :-) > >Speaking of the EULA, since 'make legal-info' will copy the source file > >as-is, the EULA will be present in the generated legal-info directory > >structure. So, I wonder if we really care about extracting it in the > >first place. > > > > I don't understand well enough to comment, Basically, Buildroot provides the 'legal-info' infrastructure: http://buildroot.net/downloads/manual/manual.html#legal-info > and this too seems like > the subject of a separate patch. Well, it'd be a good idea to provide the bump in one patch, since that's pretty easy, and the extra EULA stuff in a separate patch, indeed. So, to sum-up: - provide a patch that bumps the version; - just keep the directory layout as-is, we'll live with the warning but be sure to add a comment above the _EXTRACT_CMDS stating that a warning will be issued; - provide a second patch that extracts the EULA; your initial solution is OK. > >I'm a bit uneasy with the awk trick to begin with, since it would break > >without us easily noticing when we bump and the self-extractor no longer > >uses EULA/EOEULA (since the awk script will happily process its script, > >and will just print nothing and exit without error). > > > > There may be another way, by executing the extractor first without > the --accept-eula and re-directing the output. > > Again, this seems like the subject of a different patch. > > I'd also like to get Freescale to comment on this. > > Perhaps we can get them to provide a "--showlicense" in the > next release, and change things then. If you have your ways inside Freescale, then it might be a good idea, yes! Unless they're already reading us. NSA, you there? :-] Regards, Yann E. MORIN. -- .-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'