[OE-core] [PATCH v2 2/5] alsa-ucm-conf: new recipe, version 1.2.1.2

[Tanu Kaskinen]

On Thu, 2020-01-30 at 15:01 +0100, Nicolas Dechesne wrote:
> hey,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 10:18 AM Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi> wrote:
> > The UCM configuration files were moved from the alsa-lib repository to a
> > new alsa-ucm-conf repository. The move was accompanied by a license
> > change from LGPL2.1 to BSD-3-Clause.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi>
> > ---
> >  meta/conf/distro/include/maintainers.inc      |  1 +
> >  .../alsa/alsa-lib_1.2.1.2.bb                  |  2 +-
> >  .../alsa/alsa-ucm-conf_1.2.1.2.bb             | 23 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >  create mode 100644 meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-ucm-conf_1.2.1.2.bb
> > 
> > diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/maintainers.inc b/meta/conf/distro/include/maintainers.inc
> > index 39eee9475c..c9fb373f52 100644
> > --- a/meta/conf/distro/include/maintainers.inc
> > +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/maintainers.inc
> > @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-alsa-lib = "Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi>"
> >  RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-alsa-plugins = "Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi>"
> >  RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-alsa-state = "Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi>"
> >  RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-alsa-tools = "Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi>"
> > +RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-alsa-ucm-conf = "Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi>"
> >  RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-alsa-utils = "Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi>"
> >  RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-alsa-utils-scripts = "Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi>"
> >  RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-apmd = "Anuj Mittal <anuj.mittal at intel.com>"
> > diff --git a/meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-lib_1.2.1.2.bb b/meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-lib_1.2.1.2.bb
> > index 9565ad1b20..7bc78b8523 100644
> > --- a/meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-lib_1.2.1.2.bb
> > +++ b/meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-lib_1.2.1.2.bb
> > @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ FILES_alsa-server = "${bindir}/*"
> >  FILES_alsa-conf = "${datadir}/alsa/"
> >  FILES_libatopology = "${libdir}/libatopology.so.*"
> > 
> > -RDEPENDS_${PN}_class-target = "alsa-conf"
> > +RDEPENDS_${PN}_class-target = "alsa-conf alsa-ucm-conf"
> > 
> >  # upgrade path
> >  RPROVIDES_${PN} = "libasound"
> > diff --git a/meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-ucm-conf_1.2.1.2.bb b/meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-ucm-conf_1.2.1.2.bb
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000..469d1f7a95
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-ucm-conf_1.2.1.2.bb
> > @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
> > +SUMMARY = "ALSA Use Case Manager configuration"
> > +HOMEPAGE = "https://alsa-project.org"
> > +BUGTRACKER = "https://alsa-project.org/wiki/Bug_Tracking"
> > +LICENSE = "BSD-3-Clause"
> > +LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://LICENSE;md5=20d74d74db9741697903372ad001d3b4"
> > +
> > +# The tarball doesn't have any toplevel directory. The subdir option tells
> > +# Bitbake to unpack the archive to the correct place.
> > +SRC_URI = "https://www.alsa-project.org/files/pub/lib/${BP}.tar.bz2;subdir=${BP}"
> > +SRC_URI[md5sum] = "b7fa43cfd79df978184a6333766d2a50"
> > +SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "ea8a86875f4cf430d49a662a04a6d6c606c5c9d67e54cb944c4d77b24554062f"
> > +
> > +inherit allarch
> 
> it's a bit late into the game.. but I have some questions about this
> patch. now that the alsa-ucm-conf are allarch, how do we expect a BSP
> layer to provide its own UCM config files? if i add a .bbappend file,
> I can't change PACKAGE_ARCH to be 'machine' specific. If i create a
> new recipe for my custom UCM files, then it's not obvious when I
> should install them, since we need them only if alsa-ucm-conf is
> installed in the first place..
> 
> I was thinking about adding an empty alsa-ucm-machine-conf recipe that
> BSP could append,  like gpsd, e.g.:
> http://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded/tree/meta-oe/recipes-navigation/gpsd/gpsd-machine-conf_1.0.bb
> 
> Is that a good idea?

I was hoping someone else would answer this, since I have no experience
with BSPs or .bbappend files... Since I don't know how this *should* be
done, I'm not against creating alsa-ucm-machine-conf. However, my
intuition would be that the BSP installs its configuration as a
separate recipe whenever the BSP is used. I don't see the need to have
conditions such as "install only if alsa-ucm-conf is installed". Is it
just to save disk space? alsa-ucm-conf anyway installs a bunch of files
that aren't relevant to most machines, so if you're worried about UCM
disk consumption, the alsa-ucm-conf recipe would need work to somehow
install only those files that are needed by the current machine.

Another approach that would make sense to me (even more than creating a
separate recipe) is to submit your UCM config to ALSA upstream. While
waiting for the change to get accepted to upstream and then later
incorporated in the main alsa-ucm-conf recipe, you could use .bbappend
to add the configuration to the alsa-ucm-conf recipe as a patch.

-- 
Tanu

https://www.patreon.com/tanuk
https://liberapay.com/tanuk