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

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 09:06 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It was master under test, it won't make master until it works :)
>
> I don't mind who sends me the working version.

Attached is the fixed up patch with DEPENDS, the existing one had a typo
in:

  do_config[depends] = "kern-tools-native:do_populate_sysroot"

I've gone ahead and replaced it with a DEPENDS and tested the failure case
here.

This is a complete patch replacement, let me know if you'd prefer something
incremental.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
>



--
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-busybox-add-config-fragments.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1655 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20130212/549f1171/attachment-0002.obj>