[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] Add support for package-declared devices

[Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>]

On 07/09/2011 18:22, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday 07 September 2011 11:21:22, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> On 06/09/2011 18:03, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
>>> On Monday 05 September 2011 18:15:14, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>>> On 05/09/2011 08:52, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>>>>> Yes, exactly. However, I don't really like the name <pkg>_DEVICE_TABLE
>>>>> because, it might be for other purposes as well (setting setuid bit,
>>>>> giving specific owner/group or permissions, etc.). Does anyone has an
>>>>> idea for a better name?
>>>>
>>>> I agree, I don't like it neither, but I have no idea on what could be
>>>> better...
>>>>
>>>> Files, maybe, but I find it way too generic.
>>>
>>>
>>>  How about _FILE_MOD_TABLE (cfr. chmod)?
>>
>> Hmm, I'm not quite sure, it is more than just mod. Maybe reuse the
>> "skeleton" term already in use in buildroot.
> 
>  AFAICS it does three things:
> - make device nodes (mknod)
> - change permissions (chmod)
> - set ownership (chown)
> 
>  So skeleton is not really the right term, as it only refers to the mknod 
> function again.  (Although not-yet-existing files and directories are created, 
> that's not usually the main purpose for files and directories.)

In device_table.txt, it also creates the whole basic filesystem
hierarchy, with folders (such as /dev) and files (such as /etc/shadow).
So you will have to add mkdir and touch to your list. That is why is was
going for skeleton,

>  FILE is also not a good idea since it also applies to directories and device 
> nodes which are not really files.

Heresy! :)
More seriously, I was speaking about files with the Unix meaning in
mind, but it is true it can cause confusion.

>  A complete name would be _NOD_MOD_OWN_TABLE, but that's too long and too 
> cryptic :-)  Plus, we might want to add things like setting the utimes etc. in 
> the future.

I agree.

>  The functionality is in fact comparable to install - copy files and set 
> attributes (except for the copy part).  So we could use _ATTRIBUTE_TABLE. 
> Unfortunately, 'attributes' could also refer to the e2fs file attributes, 
> which are a different thing entirely (cfr. man chattr).  Or 
> _FILE_INSTALL_TABLE.

This one seems good to me. Peter ?


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