On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 15:16, John Crispin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 05/06/2019 15:11, Jonas Gorski wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 14:58, John Crispin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On 05/06/2019 14:54, Jonas Gorski wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 14:33, John Crispin <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> On 05/06/2019 13:35, Karl Palsson wrote: > >>>>> John Crispin <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> On 05/06/2019 12:17, Karl Palsson wrote: > >>>>>>> John Crispin <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> This can be used inside build setups for easy feeds.conf > >>>>>>>> generation. > >>>>>>> Could you give us an example of how this is actually easy, or > >>>>>>> what sort of functionality this is providing beyond "cat > >>>>>>> feeds.conf.default feeds.conf.extra > feeds.conf" > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It seems like a lot of perl for a narrow usecase. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sincerely, > >>>>>>> Karl Palsson > >>>>>> This was brought up as a missing feature by the prpl folks. I > >>>>>> considered on how to best implement this and find that having > >>>>>> proper tooling is much better than having to carry around an > >>>>>> extra file that is cat. being able to build the feeds.conf > >>>>>> dynamically like this just seems much cleaner to me and will > >>>>>> allow downstream users, vendors, odms and integrators to have > >>>>>> less need to patch their trees to death. > >>>>> So, they still have to have a script, but now the script has... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ... > >>>>> ./scripts/feeds setup -b src-git,private-aa,git://blah > >>>>> src-link,private-bb,/wop/blah > >>>>> ... > >>>>> > >>>>> instead of > >>>>> ... > >>>>> cp feeds.conf.default feeds.conf > >>>>> echo "src-git private-aa git://blah" >> feeds.conf > >>>>> echo "src-link private-bb /wop/blah" >> feeds.conf > >>>>> ... > >>>>> > >>>>> I mean, _yes_ it's "simpler" but it's only simpler by bringing in > >>>>> new tools with new layers of abstraction. I really question > >>>>> whether that's actually simpler for anyone in the long run, and > >>>>> also how this really counts as a "missing feature" There's still > >>>>> going to be a requirement for that vendor script. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sincerely, > >>>>> Karl Palsson > >>>> Its not a new tool, its an extra call to an already existing one. I > >>>> believe that the one liner is much cleaner than the 3 line scriptage. > >>>> there is no requirement for a vendor script. they ship with a PDF that > >>>> has the build steps. This oneline will be much easier to use I believe. > >>> Since the use case is having additional custom feeds to the normal > >>> package feeds, maybe it would make more sense to have a e.g. > >>> feeds.conf.custom that is used as an addition to the > >>> feeds.conf.default instead of completely replacing it. That way you > >>> would avoid missing upstream changes in the feeds.conf.default when > >>> updating your build environment. > >> Hi, > >> > >> The patch does not manipulate the default file at all. > >> > >> > >>> Then we could add a few commands to scripts/feeds for manipulating > >>> that feeds.conf.custom (adding/removing feeds, changing their > >>> types/addresses/names etc). > >> so instead of using script/commands to create the already existing > >> feeds.conf file we should introduce a 3rd file ? that makes no sense to me. > > No, in that case there would be no feeds.conf. Just feeds.conf.default > > + feeds.conf.custom (a "diff"), so still only two files. Different > > name to not break existing feeds.conf setups. Or add a marker to > > feeds.conf to mark it as a "snippet/diff". Or maybe use the include > > thing proposed by Bjørn at the top line of the generated feeds.conf. > > > > So the feeds.conf generated by your command would then be > > > > src-include feeds.conf.default > > src-git custom_stuff git://example.com:foo > > > > avoiding having to have a local, unchanging copy of contents of > > feeds.conf.default in there. > > > > A bit like we split up the opkg feeds configuration to basic/dist > > feeds files and custom feeds file. > > > > > > Regards > > Jonas > > > That will yet again require an additional git tree, which is not > deployable inside a tar file + pdf and is voodoo to the users. I do like > the idea though, but it is fitting for a foss developer and not a > corporate coder.
??? Where does the additional git tree come from? If the feeds.conf.default doesn't change, that's fine. But not having the default feeds in a (local) configuration file has the advantage that if you e.g. update your base distribution/sdk from e.g. 19.06 to 19.12, you don't need to update your feeds.conf to point to the 19.12 branches. Or re-create it. Jonas _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
