[oe] [meta-oe][PATCH] vim: add recipe for vim-tiny

[Paul Barker]

On 16 October 2014 04:27, Huang, Jie (Jackie)
<Jackie.Huang at windriver.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: openembedded-devel-bounces at lists.openembedded.org [mailto:openembedded-devel-
>> bounces at lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of Paul Barker
>> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 1:45 AM
>> To: OE Devel
>> Subject: Re: [oe] [meta-oe][PATCH] vim: add recipe for vim-tiny
>>
>> On 15 October 2014 11:38, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 05:53:31AM -0400, jackie.huang at windriver.com wrote:
>> >> From: Jackie Huang <jackie.huang at windriver.com>
>> >>
>> >> Changes:
>> >> - split the vim recipe to two files
>> >> - add bb for vim-tiny based on PACKAGECONFIG defined in .inc file
>> >> - use trim_version to get VIMDIR
>> >
>> > If you really want to revert following 2 patches, then you need to
>
> Sorry that I didn't notice the 2 patches in the commit history.
>
>> > provide more justifications for your patch and also confirm that the
>> > recipes don't stage conflicting files in sysroot anymore (I don't see
>> > any change in recipe preventing that).
>
> In vim-tiny, there are only two files installed: the binary and the rc file,
> and they are renamed to avoid the confliction:
> $ find . -type f
> ./bin/vim-tiny (it's vim in vim package)
> ./usr/share/vim/virc (it's vimrc in vim package)
>

With just vim-tiny installed, the user should still be able to run
'vim' to start the program. We could make that an update-alternatives
link, but then we'd have to rename the executable for vim proper and
use update-alternatives there as well.

I'd rather see both packages use the 'vim' executable name and set
CONFLICTS/RCONFLICTS appropriately, unless there is a good reason a
user would want both 'vim' and 'vim-tiny' installed together.

>> >
>>
>> Agreed. There may be a use for having both vim and vim-tiny in a package feed, but I think we need a
>
> We have been using like this for a long time and it works fine when both vim and vim-tiny are installed.
>
>> better way of handling it than this.
>
> I don't insist on this way and will be happy if there is a better way to handle this. We usually define what
> need to be installed in different packagegroups and images, for smaller image, we need vim-tiny, some
> others need vim, I know we can change PACKAGECONFIG to get different vims, but it doesn't work in
> packagegroup or image. And it seems more clear to user/customer if we use name like vim-tiny,
> gvim/vim-gui, or user may complain that vim is not fully featured when they see vim is installed but actually
> it is the one with tiny feature.

I think this is a wider issue that may affect packages other than vim.
I seem to recall the question of whether PACKAGECONFIG values can be
set per image recipe being asked previously.

Is it possible to write a vim-tiny recipe without splitting vim.inc
from vim_*.bb? Can vim-tiny just 'require vim_7.4.373.bb' and change
PACKAGECONFIG and the do_install function?

>
>>
>> This patch is difficult to fully review as it mixes conceptually different changes together. If this or
>> something similar does go in after further discussion, it needs to be split up.
>
> Yeah, sorry for that, I will split it up if needed after further discussion here.
>
> Thanks,
> Jackie
>

Cheers,

-- 
Paul Barker

Email: paul at paulbarker.me.uk
http://www.paulbarker.me.uk