[OE-core] [PATCH 3/4] kernel: Add kernel-headers package for target module build

[Darren Hart]

On 06/29/2012 06:15 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 12-06-29 03:22 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Darren Hart<dvhart at linux.intel.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/28/2012 11:04 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Darren Hart<dvhart at linux.intel.com>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I don't have a strong opinion here, I'll happily call it
>>>>> kernel-devel if that is strongly preferred by some.
>>>>
>>>> in oe terminology it will be -dev
>>>
>>> THe other reason I didn't go that route is that we already have a
>>> kernel-dev (although I don't much like the way it is used):
>>>
>>>  From kernel.bbclass:
>>>
>>> PACKAGES = "kernel kernel-base kernel-vmlinux kernel-image kernel-dev \
>>>             kernel-misc kernel-headers"
>>> FILES = ""
>>> FILES_kernel-image = "/boot/${KERNEL_IMAGETYPE}*"
>>> FILES_kernel-dev = "/boot/System.map* /boot/Module.symvers* /boot/config*"
>>> FILES_kernel-vmlinux = "/boot/vmlinux*"
>>> # misc is a package to contain files we need in staging
>>> FILES_kernel-misc = "/kernel/include/config /kernel/scripts
>>> /kernel/drivers/crypto /kernel/drivers/media"
>>> FILES_kernel-headers = "/usr/src/kernel-headers"
>>>
>>> And looking at that it appears I broke kernel-misc by moving things to
>>> /usr/src (didn't notice that in my testing).
>>>
>>> How would you propose we redefine the above in order to use "kernel-dev"
>>> for the new package?
>>
>> hmmm interesting so I guess, linux-dev being already taken, you might
>> call it linux-kernel-headers as you were doing. So we have
>> linux-libc-headers and linux-kernel-headers to differentiate between
>> raw and sanitized headers
> 
> What would break if the new files were simply added to the existing 
> kernel-dev
> package ? I'm already putting System.map and others on targets in
> different environments for dev/debug, so would adding enough to build
> kernel modules on the target be a big problem ?


I was considering this last night as well.

> But I probably just don't understand *what* the existing -dev package
> is used for, and my comment makes no sense :)

And I landed here as well.

Should we attempt this approach and only break them apart if somebody
screams?

> 
> Outside of that, I also like linux-kernel-headers as the package name.

Would you prefer this even if we merge it with the existing kernel-dev?
I think my order of preference would be:

1) Merge with kernel-dev and leave the name as kernel-dev for
   consistency

2) New package called linux-kernel-headers

--
Darren

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bruce
> 
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Darren Hart
>>> Intel Open Source Technology Center
>>> Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
>>>
>>>
> 

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel