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 1Skbu2-0007XP-He for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:10:30 +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 q5TDxUpq024831 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 29 Jun 2012 06:59:30 -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 06:59:30 -0700 Message-ID: <4FEDB4B3.7040802@windriver.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:59:15 -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: Darren Hart 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> <4FEDAA70.3070009@windriver.com> <4FEDAF4F.5070104@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4FEDAF4F.5070104@linux.intel.com> Cc: 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 14:10:31 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12-06-29 09:36 AM, Darren Hart wrote: > > > On 06/29/2012 06:15 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: >> 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 ? > > > I was considering this last night as well. > >> But I probably just don't understand *what* the existing -dev package >> is used for, and my comment makes no sense :) > > And I landed here as well. :) > > Should we attempt this approach and only break them apart if somebody > screams? In the absence of definitely proof that we are missing something, I'm ok with suggesting that we have a single -dev package. > >> >> Outside of that, I also like linux-kernel-headers as the package name. > > Would you prefer this even if we merge it with the existing kernel-dev? > I think my order of preference would be: > > 1) Merge with kernel-dev and leave the name as kernel-dev for > consistency > > 2) New package called linux-kernel-headers Is there a 3rd option of a virtual package called linux-kernel-headers that maps to -dev ? I have no idea if that is even possible or desirable, but I thought I'd mention it. I like #1, since we really are talking about development vs just some headers lying around :) Cheers, Bruce > > -- > Darren > >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bruce >> >>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Darren Hart >>>> Intel Open Source Technology Center >>>> Yocto Project - Linux Kernel >>>> >>>> >> >