On 23.02.2008 00:28, Myles Watson wrote: > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: >> On 21.02.2008 17:16, Myles Watson wrote: >> >>> It seems like the build would be cleaner if we had two lists of files to add >>> >>> to the lar and added them in two steps. >>> >>> lar -c coreboot.rom $(NOCOMPRESS_FILES) -s $(ROM_SIZE) ... >>> lar -a coreboot.rom $(COMPRESS_FLAG) $(COMPRESSIBLE_FILES) >>> >>> The unfortunate thing with the nocompress:file:lar_path style is that it >>> makes it difficult to add support for other flags, unless you specify a flag >>> >>> ordering. For example imagine if you wanted to add a flag specifying to add >>> >>> the file as close to the end as possible, etc. >>> >>> >> I have a patch which changes lar syntax to something more reasonable and >> standard. The new syntax is >> option:option:option:fileondisk=fileinarchive >> That solves the delimiter problem quite nicely. >> >> Opinions? >> > > The per-file options were fragile because there was only support for one at > the beginning of the option, and to add another you'd either have to specify > an ordering, or check all possible orderings. >
My patch solved that problem. >>> The reason I was interested is I still think the cleanest way is to allow >>> >>> repacking of lar files (i.e., no intermediate format), but I don't see a >>> good way to add that option with the current usage model for lar. >>> >>> >> --exporttolar and --importfromlar? >> > > Sorry I missed this before. Here are a few comments: > > 1. There's no need to export if you can import into a new lar. > > 2. I didn't mean that I couldn't think of a name for the option. I just > meant that since we were using per-file options there would probably need to > be a per-file option for which lar to search for a file you wanted to add. > If we remove the per-file option and expect people to use multiple runs of > lar, it makes it much easier to add something like: > > lar -c newlar.rom -L oldlar.rom normal payload/segment0 > > Another problem I was having was whether I should search the lar first, then > the filesystem. It's a lot easier to just look in one place, and fail if > it's not found. It also makes it less surprising to users. > Indeed. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
