On 02-11-09 16:00, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 15:29 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
On 02-11-09 14:43, Richard Purdie wrote:
At OEDEM two years ago I proposed radically altering the way staging
worked. For those that don't remember the bad old days, the staging
directory layout didn't match that of the target file system meaning
every recipe needed a custom do_stage and things were a mess.
We changed the layout allowing the use of the gcc/binutils sysroot
options and also started widespread use of autotools_stage_all and I'd
say things look much improved compared to how they were.
Anyone who has looked at the packaged-staging code will probably agree
there is still a way to go though - its horrendously complicated. We
also do a lot of duplication. I'd like to propose a new simple way of
doing things. We'd have the following work flow:
[...]
do_compile - up to here all as usual
do_install - Everything installs into a DESTDIR (including -native)
do_package - Takes a copy of the DESTDIR, applies any .la/.pc mangling
then splits into packages as usual
do_populate_staging - Takes a copy of the DESTDIR, mangles, installs
into staging and creates staging packages from this
Firstly, does any disagree with this approach or can we all agree its a
nice objective?
Can we make the mangling a seperate tasks? I tend to do the mangling in
do_compile_append to be able to do builds *on* the target as well.
I just published my WIP tree:
http://cgit.openembedded.net/cgit.cgi/openembedded/log/?h=rpurdie/work-in-progress
and specifically:
http://cgit.openembedded.net/cgit.cgi/openembedded/commit/?h=rpurdie/work-in-progress&id=1d69a38be629a70faf65dd9f2e9db12164071bfd
which means we'd start declaring "mangling" functions in their own
right. Does that work for you?
That was exactly what I was thinking about :)
Where we run these is then up to the core metadata so we can attach them
to stage/install/compile as makes sense. I want to declare some
conventions of the directories these operate on so we can make the
functions "relocatable" by changing the input variables.
And
* 'make install' doesn't actually work properly for lots of packages
(you know, the ones with handcrafted makefiles)
But we can solve that by putting the custom do_stage() methods for those
in do_install(), right?
Those packages will already have a custom do_install in some directory
so we can just use them as is.
My biggest fear is these kind of recipes:
do_install() {
oe_libinstall foo ${D}
}
do_stage() }
oe_libinstall foo ${D}
cp foo.h ${STAGING_INC_DIR}
}
I guess we could grep for do_stage_{ap,pre}pend to find the worst
offenders and gradually fix up remaining offenders.
regards,
Koen
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
