<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/07/2014 06:42 AM, Burton, Ross
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJTo0LZ2FL--UchK7pVPUJFtsQJtH35_a0aJwYUSnWh34nCf-A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 4 November 2014 05:04, Qian Lei <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:qianl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com" target="_blank">qianl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div id=":zy" class="a3s" style="overflow:hidden">
# at_console doesn't really work with the current state
of OE, so punch some more holes so people can actually
use BT<br>
+ install -m 0755 ${S}/attrib/gatttool
${D}/${bindir}/<br>
install -m 0644 ${WORKDIR}/bluetooth.conf
${D}/${sysconfdir}/dbus-1/system.d/<br>
}<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Because of where you put the install, it looks like
installing gatttool is related to the DBus configuration.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div id=":zy" class="a3s" style="overflow:hidden">
ALLOW_EMPTY_libasound-module-bluez = "1"<br>
-PACKAGES =+ "libasound-module-bluez ${PN}-testtools
${PN}-obex"<br>
+PACKAGES =+ "libasound-module-bluez ${PN}-testtools
${PN}-obex ${PN}-tools"<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Two questions:</div>
<div>1) If we're installing gatttool, why not the other
tools that are noinst (obex-client-tool, obexctl, etc).
Patching the makefile would install all the tools that
upstream build.</div>
<div>2) Do these deserve a separate package, or as they're
for testing should they go into PN-testtools? <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I do think the extra tools deserve an extra package, because they
may or may not be for testing, and in any case don't get installed
in a distinct test area as the current contents of ${PN}-testtools
do.<br>
<br>
In fact, they don't get installed at all. If EXPERIMENTAL is
enabled via PACKAGECONFIG (as it is in one of my WIP virtual/bluez
patches) there are a lot of those tools, some of which have opaque
names that don't appear related to bluetooth. However, as I use
bluez5 more of them are things I want available on the target.<br>
<br>
At this time I'm inclined to add a ${PN}-noinst-tools package for
them. I'm debating whether it's better to manually install them
from the build area, to highlight that upstream doesn't install
them, or to modify the Makefile to remove "noinst_" and then
explicitly list each one in a separate FILES_${PN}-noinst-tools
variable. The latter seems a higher risk for unwittingly adding
non-standard executables to ${PN}.<br>
<br>
Is there any precedent for a package to have its own subdirectory
off ${bindir}? It'd be easy enough to patch the Makefile to put
them all in ${bindir}/bluez5.<br>
<br>
I'm sympathetic with Qian Lei and also assumed that gattool, which
used to be installed in bluez4, might be an exception and just
belongs as an OE addition to bluez5 rather than being put in
${PN}-noinst-tools. But that's a slippery slope and new things like
btgatt-client might be just as important to the folks who want to
use GATT with bluez5. Now I'm inclined to keep it separate too.<br>
<br>
Peter<br>
</body>
</html>