[OE-core] [PATCH 0/6] devtool: improve handling of local source files

[Paul Eggleton]

On Thursday 04 June 2015 16:12:07 Markus Lehtonen wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 19:01 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > On Thursday 30 April 2015 12:16:06 Markus Lehtonen wrote:
> > > This patchset tries to improve handling of local source files (i.e.
> > > file://
> > > in SRC_URI). First, it improves packages for which S=WORKDIR (that
> > > possibly
> > > only have local sources. Second, it makes local sources available in the
> > > srctree for all packages.
> > > 
> > > See yocto bug #7602
> > 
> > I've finally looked at these, apologies for the delay. Some comments:
> > 
> > * I don't think we really want the local files to become part of the git
> > repository by default - they shouldn't be committed. Once users have
> > finished with devtool, we want them to be able to push the source tree to
> > their own repo and point to that within the recipe, whilst keeping the
> > local files next to the recipe.
> 
> So you suggest to add a new command line option to devtool extract and
> modify (--local-files or smth)? What to do when there are only local
> files (no source tarball / repo) - automatically enable --local-files in
> this case?

Is another option really required? Unless I'm missing something, I would have 
thought the behaviour for local files ought to be the same regardless of 
whether they are in addition to the upstream source, or the only files in 
SRC_URI.

> > * This implies that new files added to the local files dir when we do
> > devtool update-recipe should not be added as a patch, they should be
> > copied next to the recipe and added to SRC_URI. I'm more than happy for
> > us to implement this separately as a follow-up (i.e. we could start by
> > not handling adding files to the local files directory at all.)
> 
> Yeah, I actually have this WIP. Currently (i.e. with the current
> patchset), new files added to 'local-files' are just ignored. They are
> not copied and no patches is generated out of these.

OK, then it sounds like the behaviour for added files is reasonable for the 
moment and we can extend it as a follow-up.

> > * The local-files directory needs to be named specific to OE -
> > "oe-local-files" would be ideal. If we could have one place in the code
> > where this was defined that would be ideal as well (maybe at some point
> > we'd allow it to be configured).
> 
> This is not a big deal. Should it perhaps be "bb-local-files" instead?

Well strictly speaking all of this is being defined in OE, not bitbake, hence 
my suggestion of "oe-local-files".

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre