* [PATCH] systemd: check 'efi' in MACHINE_FEATURES
@ 2017-03-29 9:26 Mikko Ylinen
2017-03-29 16:00 ` Burton, Ross
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mikko Ylinen @ 2017-03-29 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core
The recipe checks 'efi' in DISTRO_FEATURES but it's a machine feature.
Fix the check to use MACHINE_FEATURES to determine whether to
enable/disable 'efi' PACKAGECONFIG.
Signed-off-by: Mikko Ylinen <mikko.ylinen@linux.intel.com>
---
meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd_232.bb | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd_232.bb b/meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd_232.bb
index fa6a6a817f..150bb9ea65 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd_232.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd_232.bb
@@ -40,7 +40,8 @@ SRC_URI_append_libc-uclibc = "\
SRC_URI_append_qemuall = " file://0001-core-device.c-Change-the-default-device-timeout-to-2.patch"
PACKAGECONFIG ??= "xz \
- ${@bb.utils.filter('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'efi pam selinux ldconfig', d)} \
+ ${@bb.utils.filter('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'pam selinux ldconfig', d)} \
+ ${@bb.utils.filter('MACHINE_FEATURES', 'efi', d)} \
${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'x11', 'xkbcommon', '', d)} \
${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'wifi', 'rfkill', '', d)} \
binfmt \
--
2.11.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] systemd: check 'efi' in MACHINE_FEATURES
2017-03-29 9:26 [PATCH] systemd: check 'efi' in MACHINE_FEATURES Mikko Ylinen
@ 2017-03-29 16:00 ` Burton, Ross
2017-03-29 23:36 ` Peter Kjellerstedt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Burton, Ross @ 2017-03-29 16:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mikko Ylinen; +Cc: OE-core
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 593 bytes --]
On 29 March 2017 at 10:26, Mikko Ylinen <mikko.ylinen@linux.intel.com>
wrote:
> The recipe checks 'efi' in DISTRO_FEATURES but it's a machine feature.
>
> Fix the check to use MACHINE_FEATURES to determine whether to
> enable/disable 'efi' PACKAGECONFIG.
>
This makes systemd a MACHINE-specific recipe, and as it contains libudev
causes rebuilds for everything linking to that. What's the actual impact
of enabling/disabling EFI?
There is a whitelist for recipes which are machine-specific but should be
treated as tune, but the barrier to get on that list is high.
Ross
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1098 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] systemd: check 'efi' in MACHINE_FEATURES
2017-03-29 16:00 ` Burton, Ross
@ 2017-03-29 23:36 ` Peter Kjellerstedt
2017-03-30 6:59 ` Mikko Ylinen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Peter Kjellerstedt @ 2017-03-29 23:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Burton, Ross, Mikko Ylinen; +Cc: OE-core
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1207 bytes --]
For the record, this is just correcting a regression that was introduced with my change to use bb.utils.filter() where I apparently missed that not all the features were DISTRO_FEATURES…
That said, I do agree that it would be preferable to get rid of the machine specific dependency if possible.
//Peter
From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of Burton, Ross
Sent: den 29 mars 2017 18:01
To: Mikko Ylinen
Cc: OE-core
Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] systemd: check 'efi' in MACHINE_FEATURES
On 29 March 2017 at 10:26, Mikko Ylinen <mikko.ylinen@linux.intel.com<mailto:mikko.ylinen@linux.intel.com>> wrote:
The recipe checks 'efi' in DISTRO_FEATURES but it's a machine feature.
Fix the check to use MACHINE_FEATURES to determine whether to
enable/disable 'efi' PACKAGECONFIG.
This makes systemd a MACHINE-specific recipe, and as it contains libudev causes rebuilds for everything linking to that. What's the actual impact of enabling/disabling EFI?
There is a whitelist for recipes which are machine-specific but should be treated as tune, but the barrier to get on that list is high.
Ross
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4823 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] systemd: check 'efi' in MACHINE_FEATURES
2017-03-29 23:36 ` Peter Kjellerstedt
@ 2017-03-30 6:59 ` Mikko Ylinen
2017-03-30 16:15 ` Burton, Ross
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mikko Ylinen @ 2017-03-30 6:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Kjellerstedt, Burton, Ross; +Cc: OE-core
On 30/03/17 02:36, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
>
> For the record, this is just correcting a regression that was
> introduced with my change to use bb.utils.filter() where I apparently
> missed that not all the features were DISTRO_FEATURES…
>
Yes, this was the case. I got a report that 'bootctl' is no longer
installed part of systemd.
> That said, I do agree that it would be preferable to get rid of the
> machine specific dependency if possible.
>
>
I'm fine. Perhaps 'efi' should not be a PACKAGECONFIG at all (and
unconditionally disabled here) and
the functionality (just bootctl?) is moved in systemd-boot. Thoughts?
-- Mikko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] systemd: check 'efi' in MACHINE_FEATURES
2017-03-30 6:59 ` Mikko Ylinen
@ 2017-03-30 16:15 ` Burton, Ross
2017-03-31 12:00 ` Mikko Ylinen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Burton, Ross @ 2017-03-30 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mikko Ylinen; +Cc: Peter Kjellerstedt, OE-core
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 375 bytes --]
On 30 March 2017 at 07:59, Mikko Ylinen <mikko.ylinen@linux.intel.com>
wrote:
> I'm fine. Perhaps 'efi' should not be a PACKAGECONFIG at all (and
> unconditionally disabled here) and
> the functionality (just bootctl?) is moved in systemd-boot. Thoughts?
>
I'm not fully aware of the details here but this seems like a good idea.
Can you prepare a patch?
Ross
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 787 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] systemd: check 'efi' in MACHINE_FEATURES
2017-03-30 16:15 ` Burton, Ross
@ 2017-03-31 12:00 ` Mikko Ylinen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mikko Ylinen @ 2017-03-31 12:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Burton, Ross, OE-core; +Cc: Peter Kjellerstedt
On 30/03/17 19:15, Burton, Ross wrote:
>
> On 30 March 2017 at 07:59, Mikko Ylinen <mikko.ylinen@linux.intel.com
> <mailto:mikko.ylinen@linux.intel.com>> wrote:
>
> I'm fine. Perhaps 'efi' should not be a PACKAGECONFIG at all (and
> unconditionally disabled here) and
> the functionality (just bootctl?) is moved in systemd-boot. Thoughts?
>
>
> I'm not fully aware of the details here but this seems like a good
> idea. Can you prepare a patch?
>
Looks like it's not very easy to build bootctl part of systemd-boot
(without re-building the whole
systemd there too).
Therefore, I'd just:
- ${@bb.utils.filter('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'efi pam
selinux ldconfig', d)} \
+ ${@bb.utils.filter('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'pam selinux
ldconfig', d)} \
and perhaps:
-PACKAGECONFIG[efi] = "--enable-efi,--disable-efi"
+PACKAGECONFIG[bootctl] = "--enable-efi,--disable-efi"
efi/bootctl can then be added in PACKAGECONFIG by those who need bootctl.
-- Mikko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-03-31 11:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-03-29 9:26 [PATCH] systemd: check 'efi' in MACHINE_FEATURES Mikko Ylinen
2017-03-29 16:00 ` Burton, Ross
2017-03-29 23:36 ` Peter Kjellerstedt
2017-03-30 6:59 ` Mikko Ylinen
2017-03-30 16:15 ` Burton, Ross
2017-03-31 12:00 ` Mikko Ylinen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox