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

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 12-06-29 09:36 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>
>
> 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?

In the absence of definitely proof that we are missing something, I'm
ok with suggesting that we have a single -dev package.

>
>>
>> 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

Is there a 3rd option of a virtual package called linux-kernel-headers
that maps to -dev ? I have no idea if that is even possible or desirable,
but I thought I'd mention it.

I like #1, since we really are talking about development vs just some
headers lying around :)

Cheers,

Bruce

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