From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Romain Naour Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 00:38:55 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/5] support/scripts/gen-bootlin-toolchains: add new script to support Bootlin toolchains In-Reply-To: <20200813234119.45c18d04@windsurf.home> References: <20200809193818.1139805-1-thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> <20200809193818.1139805-2-thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> <20200813212112.GK13263@scaer> <20200813234119.45c18d04@windsurf.home> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, Le 13/08/2020 ? 23:41, Thomas Petazzoni a ?crit?: > On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:21:12 +0200 > "Yann E. MORIN" wrote: > >>> We create a single external toolchain package, with a Kconfig "choice" >>> as a sub-option to select the toolchain variant to be used. The script >>> contains a Python dict that provides the mapping between the >>> toolchains provided by toolchains.bootlin.com, and the architecture >>> options/variants they are applicable to. >> >> I think it would be much better if that metadata were to be available on >> and served by toolchains.bootlin.com, possibly as a json blob (which >> maps very well to, and looks very much like, the python dict). Maybe one >> small json blurb for each toolchain. > > What metadata exactly should be provided ? The only metadata that is > not provided by toolchains.bootlin.com today is which toolchain is > applicable to which Buildroot architecture variants. > > But that is really Buildroot's business. I don't see why > toolchains.bootlin.com should maintain that sort of metadata. What if > then OpenEmbedded, PTXdist and OpenWrt also want to have their "custom > metadata" stored on toolchains.bootlin.com ? [off-topic] Openembedded/Yocto would require a meta-bootlin-toolchain to use pre-built Bootlin toolchains instead of internal toolchain, like for meta-arm-toolchain to use ARM arm/aarch64 toolchains. > >> That way, when you add or remove toolchains, you are also responsible >> for updating that metadata on your side, and then the script is more >> generic. >> >> Otherwise, that script will get out of sync when / if you change the >> configuration of a toolchain (e.g. if the x86-i686 toolchain bumps to at >> least i486 instead of i386). > > Yes, I agree the script needs to be maintained, but what you're asking > is to push the "Buildroot integration complexity" to a project that is > in essence not related to Buildroot (beyond the fact that the > toolchains are generated by Buildroot of course). Toolchain-builder generate new batch of toolchain once a year (but without promise), so the script will be occasionally used. Indeed, there is a risk to be out of sync but Toolchain-builder is used/maintained by Buildroot users (Thomas, Matt Weber and me) as a side project. The script will likely be updated if a toolchain configuration is updated. Best regards, Romain > > Best regards, > > Thomas >