Re: [docs] [PATCH] overview-manual: concepts: add details on package splitting

["Antonin Godard" <antonin.godard@bootlin.com>]

Hi Quentin,

On Tue Oct 22, 2024 at 2:02 PM CEST, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> Hi Antonin,
>
> On 10/22/24 1:54 PM, Antonin Godard wrote:
>> Hi Quentin,
>>
>> On Fri Oct 18, 2024 at 2:37 PM CEST, Quentin Schulz wrote:
>>>>>> +contains development-oriented files only::
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +  FILES:${PN}-dev = "${includedir} ${FILES_SOLIBSDEV} ${libdir}/*.la \
>>>>>> +                  ${libdir}/*.o ${libdir}/pkgconfig ${datadir}/pkgconfig \
>>>>>> +                  ${datadir}/aclocal ${base_libdir}/*.o \
>>>>>> +                  ${libdir}/${BPN}/*.la ${base_libdir}/*.la \
>>>>>> +                  ${libdir}/cmake ${datadir}/cmake"
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +The paths in this list must be *absolute*, and must use the path prefixes
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a very important piece of information that needs to be added
>>>>> here and a source of many newcomers' mistake: these are absolute paths
>>>>> from the PoV of the root of the filesystem on the target, NOT from bitbake.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, in do_install (and do_package, etc.) we need to prefix our paths
>>>>> with $D (and $PKGD/$PKGDEST) when installing/packaging files, however,
>>>>> FILES doesn't not need those, even more it should NOT have those.
>>>>
>>>> You're right, will change to:
>>>>
>>>> """
>>>> The paths must use the path prefixes defined by the
>>>> :oe_git:`meta/conf/bitbake.conf </openembedded-core/tree/meta/conf/bitbake.conf>`
>>>> configuration file, such as ``${sysconfdir}``, ``${bindir}``, etc.
>>>>
>>>> The paths in this list must be *absolute* paths from the point of view of the
>>>> root filesystem on the target. For example, assuming the following path is
>>>> added to the :term:`FILES` variable::
>>>>
>>>>     ${sysconfdir}/foo.conf
>>>>
>>>> In a later phase of the build system, the created package will be used to
>>>> install the file ``/etc/foo.conf`` on the target, since ``${sysconfdir}``
>>>> equals to ``/etc`` (unless explicitely overwritten).
>>>> """
>>>>
>>>
>>> Note sure the last paragraph makes a lot of sense in that context, I
>>> would simply remove it. I realize that I may have mislead you in my
>>> suggestion, it was intended to be a justification as to why I think this
>>> mistakes happen often, because we often have an additional variable in
>>> front of the path as one would see it on the target.
>>>
>>> I would add a note to make it extra clear that ${D} should NOT be added
>>> to it. It's implied here by "omission" but I've seen this happen too
>>> many times that I would really suggest adding a note for that common
>>> mistake :)
>>
>> Something like this?
>>
>> """
>> The paths in this list must be *absolute* paths from the point of view of the
>> root filesystem on the target, and should make reference to the variable
>> :term:`D` or any :term:`WORKDIR` related variable. An example would be::
>>
>>    ${sysconfdir}/foo.conf
>> """
>>
>
> should NOT, but otherwise yes.

Ouch, thanks for noticing this!

> I would also states that ${sysconfdir}/foo.conf is a **correct**
> example, because we finish the last sentence with something to NOT do
> and then provide an example, so it can be a bit confusing.

+1, will add that.

Sending a v2 in a couple of minutes…

Thanks!
Antonin

--
Antonin Godard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com