From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SkbDe-0006Tk-EC for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:26:42 +0200 Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca [147.11.189.40]) by mail.windriver.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q5TDFhTg018548 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 29 Jun 2012 06:15:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.224.146.67] (128.224.146.67) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.255.0; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 06:15:42 -0700 Message-ID: <4FEDAA70.3070009@windriver.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:15:28 -0400 From: Bruce Ashfield User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Khem Raj References: <4263ffefaa6f3b0069bc41c0f7578d36717edcfc.1340942930.git.dvhart@linux.intel.com> <5b45f71fee3c593e5420a5a9b36ba947c429a397.1340942930.git.dvhart@linux.intel.com> <4FED4226.30700@linux.intel.com> <4FED47D7.7080107@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Cc: Darren Hart , Poky , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] kernel: Add kernel-headers package for target module build X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:26:42 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12-06-29 03:22 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Darren Hart wrote: >> >> >> On 06/28/2012 11:04 PM, Khem Raj wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Darren Hart wrote: >>>> >>>> However, I don't have a strong opinion here, I'll happily call it >>>> kernel-devel if that is strongly preferred by some. >>> >>> in oe terminology it will be -dev >> >> THe other reason I didn't go that route is that we already have a >> kernel-dev (although I don't much like the way it is used): >> >> From kernel.bbclass: >> >> PACKAGES = "kernel kernel-base kernel-vmlinux kernel-image kernel-dev \ >> kernel-misc kernel-headers" >> FILES = "" >> FILES_kernel-image = "/boot/${KERNEL_IMAGETYPE}*" >> FILES_kernel-dev = "/boot/System.map* /boot/Module.symvers* /boot/config*" >> FILES_kernel-vmlinux = "/boot/vmlinux*" >> # misc is a package to contain files we need in staging >> FILES_kernel-misc = "/kernel/include/config /kernel/scripts >> /kernel/drivers/crypto /kernel/drivers/media" >> FILES_kernel-headers = "/usr/src/kernel-headers" >> >> And looking at that it appears I broke kernel-misc by moving things to >> /usr/src (didn't notice that in my testing). >> >> How would you propose we redefine the above in order to use "kernel-dev" >> for the new package? > > hmmm interesting so I guess, linux-dev being already taken, you might > call it linux-kernel-headers as you were doing. So we have > linux-libc-headers and linux-kernel-headers to differentiate between > raw and sanitized headers What would break if the new files were simply added to the existing kernel-dev package ? I'm already putting System.map and others on targets in different environments for dev/debug, so would adding enough to build kernel modules on the target be a big problem ? But I probably just don't understand *what* the existing -dev package is used for, and my comment makes no sense :) Outside of that, I also like linux-kernel-headers as the package name. Cheers, Bruce > >> >> -- >> Darren Hart >> Intel Open Source Technology Center >> Yocto Project - Linux Kernel >> >>