From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 22:11:46 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 3/3] package/parted: add a host variant In-Reply-To: <20131206180751.03555e6e@skate> References: <1891fdbc7ad11ce084f2be315871eb10573953b7.1386023329.git.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> <20131206104811.49d81180@skate> <20131206165614.GB3364@free.fr> <20131206180751.03555e6e@skate> Message-ID: <52A63212.4030003@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 06/12/13 18:07, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Dear Yann E. MORIN, > > On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 17:56:14 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > >> I think we want the same dependency the target parted has. If the target >> parted can handle lvm2 volumes, then we may have to generate them in the >> first place. > > Yes, we may. But that seems unlikely. I believe the most common usage > of LVM on embedded platforms is for NAS/storage type devices, and for > those systems, the root filesystem image is generally not on the > LVM/RAID storage I believe, no? It's also used for encrypted volumes, no? > >> So, what about: >> >> # If target-parted can handle lvm volumes, then host-parted >> # should be, too, so as to be able to generate them. >> # If target-parted can't handle lvm volumes, there is no reason >> # for host-aprted to handle them. >> ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_LVM2),y) >> PARTED_DEPENDENCIES += lvm2 >> HOST_PARTED_DEPENDENCIES += lvm2 >> PARTED_CONF_OPT += --enable-device-mapper >> HOST_PARTED_CONF_OPT += --enable-device-mapper >> else >> PARTED_CONF_OPT += --disable-device-mapper >> HOST_PARTED_CONF_OPT += --disable-device-mapper >> endif > > While I do understand the logic behind what you're proposing, I'm not > really comfortable with having the configuration of tools built for the > host changed depending on the target configuration. It seems to be > creating a bad precedent. We already have a precedent: libxml2. What is so bad about one package's configuration depending on another package configuration? > >>> In the host variant of parted, lvm2 support is never enabled, as I >>> believe it's pretty unlikely that lvm2 support will be needed to >>> generate disk images. This would make PATCH 2/3 of your series >>> unnecessary, of course. >> >> I don't think we should not be able to generate lvm volumes. I can see >> at least a few cases where it would be needed. >> >> Of course, we may just add host-parted without lvm support right now, >> and add it later when the need really arises. > > Yes, that would be my proposal. That's of course also fine - only implement it when it's actually used. Regards, Arnout -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F