Re: [OE-core] how to sneak a function into the *middle* of "prefuncs"?
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2024-01-03 at 11:21 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > no, no, hear me out ... colleague has a vendor's YP build system and > > needs to -- in the middle of a bunch of a task's [prefuncs] -- sneak > > in a signing step. can't be at the beginning (what to be signed not > > created yet), and can't be at the end cuz by then it's too late as the > > artifact has been bundled. > > > > first, as i read it, for a given task, all of the prefuncs are > > invoked in exact L-to-R order, then the task is run, then all of the > > postfuncs are done in L-to-R order. then (and only the) does the > > processing move on to the next task. > > > > given limited freedom to change the vendor's recipes, my first > > thought was to define an "intermediate" task whose only purpose was to > > babysit the signing step, make the signing function either a prefunc > > or postfunc of that task (should not matter which), then redefine the > > preceding and subsequent tasks to split up all those functions > > properly so that the signing step sits in the middle where it belongs. > > > > am i overthinking this? and even if the code processes a single > > task's prefuncs and postfuncs in order, that's not the thing i really > > want to count on. > > > > thoughts? > > append or prepend one of the prefunc functions? h ... i embarrassingly had not thought of that. that might be the solution, thanks. rday -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#193306): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/193306 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/103504749/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [OE-core] how to sneak a function into the *middle* of "prefuncs"?
On Wed, 2024-01-03 at 11:21 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > no, no, hear me out ... colleague has a vendor's YP build system and > needs to -- in the middle of a bunch of a task's [prefuncs] -- sneak > in a signing step. can't be at the beginning (what to be signed not > created yet), and can't be at the end cuz by then it's too late as the > artifact has been bundled. > > first, as i read it, for a given task, all of the prefuncs are > invoked in exact L-to-R order, then the task is run, then all of the > postfuncs are done in L-to-R order. then (and only the) does the > processing move on to the next task. > > given limited freedom to change the vendor's recipes, my first > thought was to define an "intermediate" task whose only purpose was to > babysit the signing step, make the signing function either a prefunc > or postfunc of that task (should not matter which), then redefine the > preceding and subsequent tasks to split up all those functions > properly so that the signing step sits in the middle where it belongs. > > am i overthinking this? and even if the code processes a single > task's prefuncs and postfuncs in order, that's not the thing i really > want to count on. > > thoughts? append or prepend one of the prefunc functions? Cheers, Richard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#193294): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/193294 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/103504749/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[OE-core] how to sneak a function into the *middle* of "prefuncs"?
no, no, hear me out ... colleague has a vendor's YP build system and needs to -- in the middle of a bunch of a task's [prefuncs] -- sneak in a signing step. can't be at the beginning (what to be signed not created yet), and can't be at the end cuz by then it's too late as the artifact has been bundled. first, as i read it, for a given task, all of the prefuncs are invoked in exact L-to-R order, then the task is run, then all of the postfuncs are done in L-to-R order. then (and only the) does the processing move on to the next task. given limited freedom to change the vendor's recipes, my first thought was to define an "intermediate" task whose only purpose was to babysit the signing step, make the signing function either a prefunc or postfunc of that task (should not matter which), then redefine the preceding and subsequent tasks to split up all those functions properly so that the signing step sits in the middle where it belongs. am i overthinking this? and even if the code processes a single task's prefuncs and postfuncs in order, that's not the thing i really want to count on. thoughts? rday -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#193293): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/193293 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/103504749/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
