On Thu, 2020-01-30 at 15:01 +0100, Nicolas Dechesne wrote: > hey, > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 10:18 AM Tanu Kaskinen <[email protected]> wrote: > > The UCM configuration files were moved from the alsa-lib repository to a > > new alsa-ucm-conf repository. The move was accompanied by a license > > change from LGPL2.1 to BSD-3-Clause. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tanu Kaskinen <[email protected]> > > --- > > meta/conf/distro/include/maintainers.inc | 1 + > > .../alsa/alsa-lib_1.2.1.2.bb | 2 +- > > .../alsa/alsa-ucm-conf_1.2.1.2.bb | 23 +++++++++++++++++++ > > 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > create mode 100644 meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-ucm-conf_1.2.1.2.bb > > > > diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/maintainers.inc > > b/meta/conf/distro/include/maintainers.inc > > index 39eee9475c..c9fb373f52 100644 > > --- a/meta/conf/distro/include/maintainers.inc > > +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/maintainers.inc > > @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-alsa-lib = "Tanu Kaskinen > > <[email protected]>" > > RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-alsa-plugins = "Tanu Kaskinen <[email protected]>" > > RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-alsa-state = "Tanu Kaskinen <[email protected]>" > > RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-alsa-tools = "Tanu Kaskinen <[email protected]>" > > +RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-alsa-ucm-conf = "Tanu Kaskinen <[email protected]>" > > RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-alsa-utils = "Tanu Kaskinen <[email protected]>" > > RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-alsa-utils-scripts = "Tanu Kaskinen <[email protected]>" > > RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-apmd = "Anuj Mittal <[email protected]>" > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-lib_1.2.1.2.bb > > b/meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-lib_1.2.1.2.bb > > index 9565ad1b20..7bc78b8523 100644 > > --- a/meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-lib_1.2.1.2.bb > > +++ b/meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-lib_1.2.1.2.bb > > @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ FILES_alsa-server = "${bindir}/*" > > FILES_alsa-conf = "${datadir}/alsa/" > > FILES_libatopology = "${libdir}/libatopology.so.*" > > > > -RDEPENDS_${PN}_class-target = "alsa-conf" > > +RDEPENDS_${PN}_class-target = "alsa-conf alsa-ucm-conf" > > > > # upgrade path > > RPROVIDES_${PN} = "libasound" > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-ucm-conf_1.2.1.2.bb > > b/meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-ucm-conf_1.2.1.2.bb > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000000..469d1f7a95 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-ucm-conf_1.2.1.2.bb > > @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ > > +SUMMARY = "ALSA Use Case Manager configuration" > > +HOMEPAGE = "https://alsa-project.org"; > > +BUGTRACKER = "https://alsa-project.org/wiki/Bug_Tracking"; > > +LICENSE = "BSD-3-Clause" > > +LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://LICENSE;md5=20d74d74db9741697903372ad001d3b4" > > + > > +# The tarball doesn't have any toplevel directory. The subdir option tells > > +# Bitbake to unpack the archive to the correct place. > > +SRC_URI = > > "https://www.alsa-project.org/files/pub/lib/${BP}.tar.bz2;subdir=${BP}"; > > +SRC_URI[md5sum] = "b7fa43cfd79df978184a6333766d2a50" > > +SRC_URI[sha256sum] = > > "ea8a86875f4cf430d49a662a04a6d6c606c5c9d67e54cb944c4d77b24554062f" > > + > > +inherit allarch > > it's a bit late into the game.. but I have some questions about this > patch. now that the alsa-ucm-conf are allarch, how do we expect a BSP > layer to provide its own UCM config files? if i add a .bbappend file, > I can't change PACKAGE_ARCH to be 'machine' specific. If i create a > new recipe for my custom UCM files, then it's not obvious when I > should install them, since we need them only if alsa-ucm-conf is > installed in the first place.. > > I was thinking about adding an empty alsa-ucm-machine-conf recipe that > BSP could append, like gpsd, e.g.: > http://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded/tree/meta-oe/recipes-navigation/gpsd/gpsd-machine-conf_1.0.bb > > Is that a good idea?
I was hoping someone else would answer this, since I have no experience with BSPs or .bbappend files... Since I don't know how this *should* be done, I'm not against creating alsa-ucm-machine-conf. However, my intuition would be that the BSP installs its configuration as a separate recipe whenever the BSP is used. I don't see the need to have conditions such as "install only if alsa-ucm-conf is installed". Is it just to save disk space? alsa-ucm-conf anyway installs a bunch of files that aren't relevant to most machines, so if you're worried about UCM disk consumption, the alsa-ucm-conf recipe would need work to somehow install only those files that are needed by the current machine. Another approach that would make sense to me (even more than creating a separate recipe) is to submit your UCM config to ALSA upstream. While waiting for the change to get accepted to upstream and then later incorporated in the main alsa-ucm-conf recipe, you could use .bbappend to add the configuration to the alsa-ucm-conf recipe as a patch. -- Tanu https://www.patreon.com/tanuk https://liberapay.com/tanuk -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
