> Am 09.07.2020 um 13:52 schrieb Otavio Salvador > <otavio.salva...@ossystems.com.br>: > > Hello Jens, > > I've added Richard on Cc.
/o\
> Em qui., 9 de jul. de 2020 às 01:13, Jens Rehsack <rehs...@gmail.com>
> escreveu:
>>> Am 08.07.2020 um 23:20 schrieb Otavio Salvador
>>> <otavio.salva...@ossystems.com.br>:
>>>
>>> Em qua., 8 de jul. de 2020 às 16:58, Jens Rehsack <rehs...@gmail.com>
>>> escreveu:
>>>>
>>>> Instead of recognizing only environment-setup scripts in
>>>> ${STAGING_DIR_TARGET} or ${STAGING_DIR_NATIVE}, respectively - lurk also
>>>> into
>>>> ${SDKPATH}/buildtools/sysroots/${SDK_SYS} where nativesdk-openssl installs
>>>> setup files.
>>>>
>>>> Remove overwriting of OPENSSL_CONF from buildtools-tarball.bb to clarify
>>>> whether nativesdk-openssl installs wrong content or buildtools-tarball:
>>>> (nativesdk-openssl) tmp/sysroots/x86_64/usr/lib/ssl-1.1/openssl.cnf
>>>> (buildtools-tarball)
>>>> buildtools/sysroots/x86_64-pokysdk-linux/etc/ssl/openssl.cnf
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Rehsack <s...@netbsd.org>
>>>
>>> I did not understand the openssl related change. Is it possible to
>>> rework the commit log so it is more detailed?
>>
>> For sure, but maybe I'm completely wrong. Let me try explaining it first...
>>
>> If - and only if - one creates an SDK which included openssl (and not
>> libressl, mbedssl, ...),
>> nativesdk-openssl packages an ${SDKPATHNATIVE}/environment-setup.d/openssl.sh
>>
>> OTOH - meta/recipes-core/meta/buildtools-tarball.bb creates a script which
>> is sourced
>> at the very end of SDK environment setup and writes what's included in
>> {SDKPATHNATIVE}/environment-setup.d/openssl.sh on it's own - with maybe
>> slightly
>> different location - what guides me to add:
>> ... to clarify whether nativesdk-openssl installs wrong content or
>> buildtools-tarball:
>> (nativesdk-openssl) tmp/sysroots/x86_64/usr/lib/ssl-1.1/openssl.cnf
>> (buildtools-tarball)
>> buildtools/sysroots/x86_64-pokysdk-linux/etc/ssl/openssl.cnf
>>
>> Maybe they way how nativesdk-cmake is doing it is the right way. Then, maybe
>> nativesdk-openssl should be reworked. This is for clarification.
>>
>> Does it explain something better?
>
> Yes and generating it directly might indeed be not the best option.
> Ideally, it'd generate a new source script which would run later and
> do any need adjustment. Do you agree?
I have at least no idea. I just wondered and thought asking this way
is an option.
> Either way, this commit seems to be mixing two changes and I'd prefer
> if you split it. This allow for nicer review as well as better commit
> messages of individual changes.
Of course I can (and will) split both changes and discuss them separately.
But I rated it highly possible that I get the feedback: both are wrong.
It's intended and should be X and Y and please send an update for
nativesdk-openssl :)
Cheers
--
Jens Rehsack - rehs...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#140480): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/140480 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/75384624/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
