curious about why bitbake.conf setting of FILES_${PN}-bin

curious about why bitbake.conf setting of FILES_${PN}-bin

[Robert P. J. Day]

  currently doing a writeup on file distribution among a recipe's
generated packages, and noticed the following. here's a snippet from
OE's bitbake.conf:


PACKAGE_BEFORE_PN ?= ""
PACKAGES = "${PN}-dbg ${PN}-staticdev ${PN}-dev ${PN}-doc ${PN}-locale ${PACKAGE_BEFORE_PN} ${PN}"
PACKAGES_DYNAMIC = "^${PN}-locale-.*"
FILES = ""

FILES_${PN} = "${bindir}/* ${sbindir}/* ${libexecdir}/* ${libdir}/lib*${SOLIBS} \
            ${sysconfdir} ${sharedstatedir} ${localstatedir} \
            ${base_bindir}/* ${base_sbindir}/* \
            ${base_libdir}/*${SOLIBS} \
            ${base_prefix}/lib/udev/rules.d ${prefix}/lib/udev/rules.d \
            ${datadir}/${BPN} ${libdir}/${BPN}/* \
            ${datadir}/pixmaps ${datadir}/applications \
            ${datadir}/idl ${datadir}/omf ${datadir}/sounds \
            ${libdir}/bonobo/servers"


  first, to make sure i understand the above correctly, the setting of
FILES_${PN} defines the (default) entire possible set of generated
files that will be used to populate the packages created by a single
recipe, correct?

  also, since packages are populated in order, left to right, we'll
see file definitions like:

FILES_${PN}-dbg = ...
FILES_${PN}-staticdev = ...
FILES_${PN}-dev = ...

where, once a file is placed in a package, even if that name occurs
again in a later package, it will be skipped. (anyone remember which
manual this is mentioned in?)

  however, i also see this:

FILES_${PN}-bin = "${bindir}/* ${sbindir}/*"

and i thought, that's weird, that particular package isn't mentioned
anywhere in bitbake.conf, why is it being defined if it isn't used?
ah, then i see this in lib_package.bbclass:

PACKAGE_BEFORE_PN = "${PN}-bin"

which clearly defines a library being packaged, but also allowing
binary executables to be broken out separately, which is fine, but
it's confusing why the setting of FILES_${PN}-bin is done in
bitbake.conf, when its only application is (currently) for library
packaging.

  wouldn't it make more sense to move that line so that
lib_package.bbclass contained:

FILES_${PN}-bin = "${bindir}/* ${sbindir}/*"
PACKAGE_BEFORE_PN = "${PN}-bin"

that would make lib_package.bbclass more self-contained, and stop
bitbake.conf from setting a variable that most recipes don't care
about. thoughts?

rday

p.s. this kind of goes back to the image vs core-image discussion,
where one wonders why base classes are doing things that require
inheriting classes to finish off for them. or something like that.

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: curious about why bitbake.conf setting of FILES_${PN}-bin

[Saul Wold]

On 07/15/2014 06:24 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
>    currently doing a writeup on file distribution among a recipe's
> generated packages, and noticed the following. here's a snippet from
> OE's bitbake.conf:
>
>
> PACKAGE_BEFORE_PN ?= ""
> PACKAGES = "${PN}-dbg ${PN}-staticdev ${PN}-dev ${PN}-doc ${PN}-locale ${PACKAGE_BEFORE_PN} ${PN}"
> PACKAGES_DYNAMIC = "^${PN}-locale-.*"
> FILES = ""
>
> FILES_${PN} = "${bindir}/* ${sbindir}/* ${libexecdir}/* ${libdir}/lib*${SOLIBS} \
>              ${sysconfdir} ${sharedstatedir} ${localstatedir} \
>              ${base_bindir}/* ${base_sbindir}/* \
>              ${base_libdir}/*${SOLIBS} \
>              ${base_prefix}/lib/udev/rules.d ${prefix}/lib/udev/rules.d \
>              ${datadir}/${BPN} ${libdir}/${BPN}/* \
>              ${datadir}/pixmaps ${datadir}/applications \
>              ${datadir}/idl ${datadir}/omf ${datadir}/sounds \
>              ${libdir}/bonobo/servers"
>
>
>    first, to make sure i understand the above correctly, the setting of
> FILES_${PN} defines the (default) entire possible set of generated
> files that will be used to populate the packages created by a single
> recipe, correct?
>
This is correct

>    also, since packages are populated in order, left to right, we'll
> see file definitions like:
>
> FILES_${PN}-dbg = ...
> FILES_${PN}-staticdev = ...
> FILES_${PN}-dev = ...
>
> where, once a file is placed in a package, even if that name occurs
> again in a later package, it will be skipped. (anyone remember which
> manual this is mentioned in?)
>
I just did a basic search and could not find any reference and I know 
that PACKAGES/FILES is "greedy" meaning once a file is consumed by a 
FILES entry it's not available again.  Should probably be added to the 
PACKAGES and / or FILES.

>    however, i also see this:
>
> FILES_${PN}-bin = "${bindir}/* ${sbindir}/*"
>
> and i thought, that's weird, that particular package isn't mentioned
> anywhere in bitbake.conf, why is it being defined if it isn't used?
> ah, then i see this in lib_package.bbclass:
>
> PACKAGE_BEFORE_PN = "${PN}-bin"
>
> which clearly defines a library being packaged, but also allowing
> binary executables to be broken out separately, which is fine, but
> it's confusing why the setting of FILES_${PN}-bin is done in
> bitbake.conf, when its only application is (currently) for library
> packaging.
>
>    wouldn't it make more sense to move that line so that
> lib_package.bbclass contained:
>
> FILES_${PN}-bin = "${bindir}/* ${sbindir}/*"
> PACKAGE_BEFORE_PN = "${PN}-bin"
>
> that would make lib_package.bbclass more self-contained, and stop
> bitbake.conf from setting a variable that most recipes don't care
> about. thoughts?
>
Blame me for that patch!  Looking back at the commit message from about 
2 years ago I think this got mid-way through a change, with the plan to 
actually remove lib_package completely since all it contained was the 
setting of PACKAGE_BEFORE_PN, therefore having FILES${PN}-bin. Not sure 
why we did not end up completing that.

So another option is to remove the inherits and replace it with 
PACKAGE_BEFORE_PNs, Which would finish off the orignal plan!

> rday
>
> p.s. this kind of goes back to the image vs core-image discussion,
> where one wonders why base classes are doing things that require
> inheriting classes to finish off for them. or something like that.
>

Re: curious about why bitbake.conf setting of FILES_${PN}-bin

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Saul Wold wrote:

> I just did a basic search and could not find any reference and I
> know that PACKAGES/FILES is "greedy" meaning once a file is consumed
> by a FILES entry it's not available again.  Should probably be added
> to the PACKAGES and / or FILES.

  i *know* i've read that before somewhere, just don't remember where.
the only reference i've seen recently is, coincidentally,
lib_package.bbclass:

#
# ${PN}-bin is defined in bitbake.conf
#
# We need to allow the other packages to be greedy with what they
# want out of /usr/bin and /usr/sbin before ${PN}-bin gets greedy.
#
PACKAGE_BEFORE_PN = "${PN}-bin"

  anyone know if it's somewhere in one of the yocto manuals?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: curious about why bitbake.conf setting of FILES_${PN}-bin

[Burton, Ross]

On 15 July 2014 16:23, Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Blame me for that patch!  Looking back at the commit message from about 2
> years ago I think this got mid-way through a change, with the plan to
> actually remove lib_package completely since all it contained was the
> setting of PACKAGE_BEFORE_PN, therefore having FILES${PN}-bin. Not sure why
> we did not end up completing that.
>
> So another option is to remove the inherits and replace it with
> PACKAGE_BEFORE_PNs, Which would finish off the orignal plan!

Wouldn't that change the packaging by putting all binaries into a
PN-bin package?

Ross

Re: curious about why bitbake.conf setting of FILES_${PN}-bin

[Saul Wold]

On 07/15/2014 08:51 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 15 July 2014 16:23, Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> Blame me for that patch!  Looking back at the commit message from about 2
>> years ago I think this got mid-way through a change, with the plan to
>> actually remove lib_package completely since all it contained was the
>> setting of PACKAGE_BEFORE_PN, therefore having FILES${PN}-bin. Not sure why
>> we did not end up completing that.
>>
>> So another option is to remove the inherits and replace it with
>> PACKAGE_BEFORE_PNs, Which would finish off the orignal plan!
>
> Wouldn't that change the packaging by putting all binaries into a
> PN-bin package?
>
No the change would be to rmove the inherit lib_packaging from the 
recipes that use it and replace that with setting PACKAGE_BEFORE_PN with 
${PN}-bin.  So it's just doing what the recipes do already, not a 
general change in bitbake.conf.

Sau!


> Ross
>
>

Re: curious about why bitbake.conf setting of FILES_${PN}-bin

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Saul Wold wrote:

> On 07/15/2014 08:51 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> > On 15 July 2014 16:23, Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > Blame me for that patch!  Looking back at the commit message
> > > from about 2 years ago I think this got mid-way through a
> > > change, with the plan to actually remove lib_package completely
> > > since all it contained was the setting of PACKAGE_BEFORE_PN,
> > > therefore having FILES${PN}-bin. Not sure why we did not end up
> > > completing that.
> > >
> > > So another option is to remove the inherits and replace it with
> > > PACKAGE_BEFORE_PNs, Which would finish off the orignal plan!
> >
> > Wouldn't that change the packaging by putting all binaries into a
> > PN-bin package?
> >
> No the change would be to rmove the inherit lib_packaging from the
> recipes that use it and replace that with setting PACKAGE_BEFORE_PN
> with ${PN}-bin. So it's just doing what the recipes do already, not
> a general change in bitbake.conf.

  just FYI, while PACKAGE_BEFORE_PN is a cool concept, it's not like
there's a lot of it being used in the poky layer -- all of two uses:

meta/classes/lib_package.bbclass:PACKAGE_BEFORE_PN = "${PN}-bin"
meta/recipes-graphics/clutter/clutter-1.0.inc:PACKAGE_BEFORE_PN += "${PN}-examples"

was it really necessary to introduce a new variable just for that?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================