[OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] busybox: add config fragments

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-02-05 at 11:29 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:42 AM, ChenQi <Qi.Chen at windriver.com> wrote:
>>         On 02/02/2013 03:08 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>         > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Saul Wold
>>         > <sgw at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>         >         On 02/01/2013 06:18 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>         >                 On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:00 AM,
>>         >                 <Qi.Chen at windriver.com
>>         >                 <mailto:Qi.Chen at windriver.com>> wrote:
>>         >                 <mailto:Qi.Chen at windriver.com>>
>>         >                     Both the implementation and the use case
>>         >                 are similar to yocto kernel's
>>         >                     configuration fragments.
>>         >                 I can fairly easily tweak the configuration
>>         >                 parts of the kern-tools to
>>         >                 handle this
>>         >                 use case as well. That would allow us to
>>         >                 re-use the kernel's merge_config.sh
>>         >                 script (with a minor dependency change) and
>>         >                 save some duplicated code. It
>>         >                 also gets you the advantage that you can
>>         >                 consolidate configuration fragments
>>         >                 outside of any build system, which isn't as
>>         >                 critical here, but something
>>         >                 that
>>         >                 is used quite a bit during kernel testing.
>>         >         Bruce,
>>         >
>>         >         Where is the merge_config.sh script today?  Would
>>         >         you propose moving it to the scripts dir and have
>>         >         the busybox recipe call it?
>>         >
>>         >
>>         > It's part of the mainline kernel, hence why grabbing the
>>         > guts out of it reproducing
>>         > it here isn't the best idea, we'll have a need to keep them
>>         > in sync. In fact, I have
>>         > 2 or 3 pending patches for it in the kern-tools repository
>>         > that I need to get upstream
>>         > (as an example).
>>         >
>>         >
>>         > I'd propose either creating a separate recipe for it (i.e.
>>         > like kconfig-frontends) or I could
>>         > keep it in kern-tools (badly named, but we can work on
>>         > that ;) and maintain / coordinate
>>         > changes to it.
>>         >
>>         >
>>         > I just don't want to see the effort happen twice, we are
>>         > busy enough!
>>         >
>>         >
>>         >         What would be your timing on making such a change,
>>         >         ie hold this patch until your get it merge or merge
>>         >         this and then fix it when you merge your changes?
>>
>>         > I could feasibly get it done in the next few weeks, the
>>         > changes aren't bug, I just
>>         > have to avoid regressions on either side (kernel or busy
>>         > box).
>>
>>         > That being said, the interface to the SRC_URI is the same
>>         > for the two, so if we are
>>         > ok with me arriving and removing the in-recipe support, I
>>         > guess I can't object too
>>         > much :) The only risk is that if anyone starts using this
>>         > first support immediately,
>>         > I do risk regressing their use case, where if it never goes
>>         > in, that won't happen.
>>
>>         > Cheers,
>>         > Bruce
>>
>>         Hi Bruce,
>>
>>         I just tried to reuse the kernel's merge_config.sh script, and
>>         it turned out well.
>>         The patch is in attachment.
>>
>>         Is it enough for now?
>>
>> Yep, this is enough for now. It re-uses the significant part of the
>> infrastructure, which
>> is the important part. Once it is in tree, I can refine the dependency
>> and some other
>> minor modifications.
>>
>> Feel free to add my Signed-off-by: to the patch as well.
>
> This patch triggers a failure on the autobuilder:

Hmmm. I didn't realize this had been picked up yet, I was waiting for
a repost with the Sign-offs. I assume this is master under test ? I can
pick up the patch from there and send an updated patch, since Chen Qi
won't be around to look into this for a few days.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> http://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org:8010/builders/p1022ds/builds/246/steps/shell_59/logs/stdio
>
> (its reproducible, this is the second one now)
>
> I suspect there is a missing DEPENDS += "kern-tools-native".
>
> You'd be able to reproduce this with a:
>
> bitbake busybox kern-tools-native; bitbake busybox kern-tools-native -c clean; bitbake busybox
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>



--
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end"