From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (5751f4a1.skybroadband.com [87.81.244.161]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07A8A774FC for ; Wed, 24 May 2017 22:44:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hex ([192.168.3.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3) with ESMTPSA id v4OMiovr029714 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 24 May 2017 23:44:54 +0100 Message-ID: <1495665889.25229.32.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Richard Purdie To: "Burton, Ross" , Mike Crowe Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 23:44:49 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20170524132336.4259-1-mac@mcrowe.com> <20170524135232.GA13067@mcrowe.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.11 (dan.rpsys.net [192.168.3.1]); Wed, 24 May 2017 23:44:55 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at dan X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: OE-core Subject: Re: [PATCH] libgcrypt: Revert to inheriting from binconfig X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 22:45:00 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 2017-05-24 at 17:25 +0100, Burton, Ross wrote: > > On 24 May 2017 at 14:52, Mike Crowe wrote: > > Oh, I thought that binconfig.bbclass swung through hoops in order > > to make > > the scripts work well enough. Is that not true? > > > > Many other recipes are still inheriting binconfig rather than > > binconfig-disabled: apr, curl, gnutls, libtasn1. > > > binconfig goes through hoops that are just not required with > pkgconfig, and the hoops are hacks which may not be reliable.  I > can't remember the details but I do remember that libgcrypt/gnupg was > a worst offender here. > > CCing Richard to see if he can remember why. > > In the glorious future removing all binconfig scripts would be the > ideal, in my opinion.  Alternatively replacing them with glorified > pkgconfig wrappers. We made a choice back then to go ahead and migrate these pieces to pkg- config regardless of upstream's views since its so much cleaner and less error prone than -config shell scripts which need hacking. We do also patch the autoconf macros those pieces of software ship so that pkg-config is used by the standard macros which covers most users (since we reautoconf software). Yes, binconfig.bbclass does have code which goes through hoops but I don't think anyone would argue that code is pleasant or even scalable. You can't easily change any of the sed expressions since you can't easily know what set of file content they operate on and what side effects any given change might have. The upstreams do change the contents of the files over time and we can't really know if any given replacements are still needed or if a new replacement may break other files. Its also bad in that the on target versions need to differ to the version used during cross building so you can't even have one version of the file. I've seen these problems happen, my patches in the past were after being burnt by that code. For those reasons I believe we should be removing usage of binconfig.bbclass from the system where we can if at all possible and replacing it, even if it increases our custom patch load a little. I know its used in a few places and I never did completely get rid of all the config files but I still believe doing so would in fact be a worthwhile effort. I appreciate that does cause some pain as we're doing something differently but I also believe it is justified. I would suggest reminding these upstreams who won't at least allow pkg-config in parallel that this does cause pain in the hope that if multiple people report it, they may rethink things. Cheers, Richard