From: Gustavo Zacarias <gustavo@zacarias.com.ar>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] Proposed util-linux split
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:41:15 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <512D01CB.3040301@zacarias.com.ar> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130226193330.04f77759@skate>
On 02/26/2013 03:33 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> I would suggest that we upgrade util-linux and add the necessary PAM
> dependency when needed. We already have package/linux-pam/, so it
> shouldn't be a big effort.
>
> Of course, only the util-linux programs that actually need PAM support
> should make this library become a dependency of util-linux.
That wouldn't be hard, howerver we'll loose the busybox login
alternative for cases without PAM.
> Would it be possible instead that util-linux always uses the libuuid
> from the libuuid package?
Not without heavy patching which doesn't look so simple for 2.22+ that
did a big rewrite in the autotools fu.
> I must admit I don't really like having multiple packages for the same
> upstream tarball. Another option is to make something like:
>
> config BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX
> bool "util-linux"
> select BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_LIBUUID if !BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_AT_LEAST_SOMETHING
>
> config BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_AT_LEAST_SOMETHING
> bool
>
> config BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_LIBUUID
> bool "libuuid"
>
> config BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_LIBBLKDID
> bool "libblkid"
> select BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_AT_LEAST_SOMETHING
>
> config BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_LIBMOUNT
> bool "libmount"
> select BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_AT_LEAST_SOMETHING
>
> config BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_SOMEPROGA
> bool "program a"
> select BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_AT_LEAST_SOMETHING
>
> This way, by default util-linux only installs libuuid.
>
> No?
That's what my previous util-linux patch did, however if we upgrade to
newer (2.22+) util-linux the old trick (make -C libxxx) doesn't work any
longer and needs patching anyway (it uses "automodules", hence no
regular Makefile for the subdirs, those are included from the top Makefile).
The patch isn't too straightforward since i remove the automodules
includes, hence not very nice for dynamic patching via sed.
The alternative would be to remove stuff we always build since
util-linux always installs a basic set of utilities that can't be
disabled (and remember, no install-libuuid or anything similar as
targets, they're all pushed into a big variable with no useful naming by
the automodules mechanism).
Regards.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-26 18:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-26 10:53 [Buildroot] Proposed util-linux split Gustavo Zacarias
2013-02-26 18:33 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-02-26 18:40 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-02-26 18:49 ` Gustavo Zacarias
2013-02-26 18:41 ` Gustavo Zacarias [this message]
2013-02-26 19:03 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-02-26 19:07 ` Gustavo Zacarias
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=512D01CB.3040301@zacarias.com.ar \
--to=gustavo@zacarias.com.ar \
--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