From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:52:24 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCHv4] core/pkg-generic: check proper package installation In-Reply-To: <56409D97.20002@lucaceresoli.net> References: <1446837330-31048-1-git-send-email-yann.morin.1998@free.fr> <563D2FFA.5010403@mind.be> <20151106230701.GC3746@free.fr> <56409D97.20002@lucaceresoli.net> Message-ID: <5640B328.6030408@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 09-11-15 14:20, Luca Ceresoli wrote: > Dear Yann, > > Yann E. MORIN wrote: >> Arnout, All, >> >> On 2015-11-06 23:55 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly: >>> On 06-11-15 20:15, Yann E. MORIN wrote: >>>> Some packages misbehave, and install files in either of; >>>> - $(STAGING_DIR)/$(O) or $(TARGET_DIR)/$(O), >>>> - $(STAGING_DIR)/$(HOST_DIR) or $(TARGET_DIR)/$(HOST_DIR). >>>> >>>> One common reason for that is that pkgconf now prepends the sysroot path >>>> to all the paths it returns. Other reasons vary, but are mostly due to >>>> poorly writen generic-packages. >>>> >>>> Add a check for those locations, as part of the command blocks for the >>>> target and staging installs. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" >>>> Cc: Thomas Petazzoni >>>> Cc: Gustavo Zacarias >>>> Cc: Arnout Vandecappelle >>>> Cc: Peter Seiderer >>>> Cc: Romain Naour >>>> > [...] >>>> + exit 1; \ >>>> + fi >>> >>> I think it's better without this duplication so with a second parameter and >>> calling the function twice. >> >> Well, it's either duplication of the if-block, or duplication of the >> call sites. And I think it is better to have duplication of the >> if-blocks, in cas we need to check for mor eloactions, otherwise we'd >> have to duplicate even more the call sites... > > Is it possible to make check-install-dirs (note the plural) just call > multiple times check-install-dir (singular), passing a different path > each time? That actually increases complexity and decreases readability compared to the current duplication of the if-block, because you (as a reader) have to parse both macros and keep them in your head simultaneously to understand what's going on. In such a case, I do prefer a bit of duplication. Regards, Arnout > > I'm sure you know all problems in computer science (except one) can be > solved by adding another level of indirection! :-) > > Obviously this can be a future improvement, especially useful in case > the list of paths to check grew longer. > -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout dot vandecappelle at essensium dot com Senior Embedded Software Architect . . . . . . +32-478-010353 (mobile) Essensium, Mind division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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: 7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF