Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] tools: Separate image types which depend on OpenSSL

[Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3265 bytes --]

On 2021-10-22, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 04:56:09PM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 11:09:27 -0400
>> Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:

>> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 04:59:22PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
>> > > On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 12:09:19 +0200
>> > > Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com> wrote:
>> > >   
>> > > > On 10/21/21 15:00, Marek Behún wrote:  
>> > > > > BTW, wouldn't it be enough to simply imply TOOLS_LIBCRYPTO for mvebu
>> > > > > platform in Kconfig?
>> > > > >     
>> > > > 
>> > > > We should only use 'imply' for suggested settings and never for hard 
>> > > > requirements. TOOLS_LIBCRYPTO already defaults to 'Y'. So implying it 
>> > > > for mvebu would be redundant.
>> > > > 
>> > > > In an OS distribution we only want to ship a single version of mkimage. 
>> > > > So it is good to elimate symbol CONFIG_MXS.
>> > > > 
>> > > > How mkimage is built should not depend on CONFIG_TOOLS_LIBCRYPTO.
>> > > > 
>> > > > Tom wrote regarding this aspect in 
>> > > > https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2021-September/460251.html:
>> > > > 
>> > > > "if we're building a generically useful tool, we don't want another
>> > > > symbol for it."  
>> > > 
>> > > OK, so mkimage and dumpimage should be always generic and always
>> > > support all platforms, that makes sense, since the tools can be
>> > > installed as a distribution package.
>> > > 
>> > > But I still think it should be possible to cripple these tools if the
>> > > developer wants to disable libcrypto due to embedded environment.  
>> 
>> Well, I don't think this is the real question here, is it?
>> I think the tools part is clear: distros want to build just mkimage,
>> supporting as many platforms as possible, and might need to avoid OpenSSL.
>> This should be covered by TOOLS_LIBCRYPTO=[yn] and "make
>> tools-only_defconfg && make tools", and Samuel's patch actually fixes the
>> build (at least somewhat, I still get link errors).
>
> The problem is, are distros doing a tools-only build, for tools, or are
> they doing it per board?  Like, hey, ugh, OpenEmbedded uses
> sandbox_defconfig and cross_tools as the targets.  That's not quite what
> I was hoping to see.  So I want to know everyone else is doing, rather
> than we hope they're doing.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention!

In Debian, the u-boot-tools package is built using tools-only, and for
each of the board-specific targets, it still ends up building the
relevent tools, but we throw them away and do not ship them in any
packages.

With 2021.10, the board-specific builds made it harder to avoid openssl
with the corresponding tools, and I reluctantly added a dependency on
openssl... (which is technically permitted in Debian, having declared
openssl as a system library to avoid the GPL incompatibilities, but
... meh.)

I also have been doing some packaging of u-boot for GNU Guix, where I
suspect the stance wouldn't be as willing to accept such a compromise...

So... I would *love* an option to be able to build a board-only config
without any of the tools; do some boards use board-specific tools as
part of their build processes?


live well,
  vagrant

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]