From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Nelson Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:11:58 -0700 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH V5 3/3] i.MX: use temp directory for Freescale self-extractors In-Reply-To: <20140214190352.GA3428@free.fr> References: <1392337580-16568-1-git-send-email-eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> <1392337580-16568-4-git-send-email-eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> <20140214190352.GA3428@free.fr> Message-ID: <52FE788E.1020408@boundarydevices.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Thanks Yann, On 02/14/2014 12:03 PM, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > Eric, All, > > On 2014-02-13 17:26 -0700, Eric Nelson spake thusly: >> The Freescale packages imx-lib, libfslcodec, libfslparser, and libfslvpuwrap >> are each bundled as self-extracting tar-balls that contain a shell script >> and a EULA in their package headers. >> >> These self-extractors also contain a command to create the destination >> directory using "mkdir" (no -p) prior to extraction. >> >> Since we want to place the output into the build directory, which has already >> been created at the time of extraction, this causes a warning message >> from "mkdir". >> >> This patch changes things so that each package is extracted first into a >> sub-directory, and the content is moved into the eventual build directory. > > In fact, I was not clear in my previous reply: as your testing shows, > and as Arnout suggested, we can well leave with this warning. > That works for me. > So, to make it clear this time: I don;t think we should try to play it > smart with this whole directory mess: the archives do extract in a > properly-named directory, so lets just accept the little warning. > Cool. I have contacted Freescale to see if we can at least get "mkdir -p" into the next release, and hopefully also address the awk-wardness of extracting the EULA. > The changes introduced by this patch, although not too complex, are not > trivial either. > Agreed. This is a lot of change for a couple of small warnings. > I suggest we just drop this patch, unless Peter really wants it. > +1 > Sorry I was not explicit enough in my previous mail. Thank you for > staying with us all along the journey! :-) I'm glad to help. Regards, Eric