From: Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2] package/libapparmor: new package
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 21:56:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200326205658.GY22325@scaer> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+_SqVaJV25AFu3btPK6OfgNLsz_DEpxfohgW-cDKzRdCrHTtA@mail.gmail.com>
Angelo, All,
On 2020-03-26 21:34 +0100, Angelo Compagnucci spake thusly:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 7:57 PM Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> wrote:
> > On 2020-03-26 19:01 +0100, Angelo Compagnucci spake thusly:
> > > From: Angelo Compagnucci <angelo.compagnucci@gmail.com>
> > > This patch adds libapparmor and it's related tools.
> > > The patch is quite complicated by the layout of the source tree:
[--SNIP--]
> > I've looked at the .mk, and I don't like it.
[--SNIP--]
> > Why don't you provide multiple packages:
> > - libapparmor
[--SNIP--]
> > - apparmor-utils, with just the parser (and binutils?) sub-dirs
> > - pam
> > - apache
> > - python
> > - profiles
> > - rules caching
> I don't know. I've tried that approach at in the end it was a mess.
> Some of the steps to build the swig python are embedded into the
> makefile, so we need to call configure and make even for a package
> that instead could have been a simple python one.
Well, as far as I can see, that's exactly what your patch does: it
installs libapparmor, and then as post-staging hooks, it then builds the
rest of the package.
This is exactly what having two packages would provide.
Now, specifically about the python bindings: maybe they should be built
from the libapparmor package rather than the utils one, sure, if it
makes more sense...
> You mean having a patch series that will add bit by bit to the package?
Yes.
As you say yourself, the package is a mess as it is. By splitting it in
a series that adds each pieces one by one, it will:
- allow you to provide a detailed commit log with full explanations
about the required uglyness,
- allow reviewers to understand that problem and better asses the
uglyness, and see if it is indeed needed.
Also, "it was a mess" is not descriptive enough to dismiss the
multi-package attempt (where 'multi' may well be just '2').
Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.
--
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
| Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ |
| +33 561 099 427 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-26 20:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-26 18:01 [Buildroot] [PATCH v2] package/libapparmor: new package Angelo Compagnucci
2020-03-26 18:56 ` Yann E. MORIN
2020-03-26 20:34 ` Angelo Compagnucci
2020-03-26 20:56 ` Yann E. MORIN [this message]
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=20200326205658.GY22325@scaer \
--to=yann.morin.1998@free.fr \
--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