From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 09:33:44 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2] package/mender: new package In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180605093344.23db50a9@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 15:37:52 -0600, Dan Walkes wrote: > Thanks for providing this patch. I'm also interested in buildroot > support for mender. Great! Thanks for your comments and feedback on the Mender integration, definitely useful. > I expect it's just that they only test integration with systemd and > systemd is not a requirement. See the comment at [1] from Mirza Krak > on the Mender dev team. > > > Mender does not have a hard-requirement on systemd (BR2_INIT_SYSTEMD), there is only a conveniently provided systemd service by default. > > I've started with the patch at [2], then made a few small changes to > get the package running on an x86 qemu virtual machine with default > sysv init scripts. See the project at [3] and branch at [4] for > details. Great. Perhaps I could merge Angelo's patch, and you could send follow-up patch improving it, such as providing non-systemd integration ? > For some reason I don't understand, I needed to add a step to > specifically install the binary after the golang build, it wasn't > happening by default for me. See the patch at [5]. > > I've noticed the current mender patches do not have support for > mender-artifact today. In order to build the mender artifact utility > I think I'd need to build a host golang package based on mender > artifact [6] but it looks like only target packages are currently > supported today with pkg-golang buildroot [7], is that correct? How > should I build the mender-artifact utility for the host? The pkg-golang infrastructure should probably be extended to build host packages as well. So far it wasn't needed, but if it's needed, then let's do it. > What would > be the correct way to invoke the mender-artifact utility to actually > generate the artifact? Would this be done through a custom post-image > script? Yes, that's generally the idea for tools that generate some kind of firmware image. > Has work already started on mender-artifact support in another patch > or on a branch somewhere? Everything submitted to the Buildroot mailing list is recorded in our patch tracking system (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/). And no, there's no work on mender-artifact support that has been submitted, at least not that I remember. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com