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

[Huang, Jie (Jackie)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: paul.betafive at gmail.com [mailto:paul.betafive at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Paul Barker
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 7:49 PM
> To: Huang, Jie (Jackie)
> Cc: Martin Jansa (martin.jansa at gmail.com); openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> Subject: Re: [oe] [meta-oe][PATCH] vim: add recipe for vim-tiny
> 
> 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

Yeah, it would be better to do like this, I will change it.

> 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?

I had thought about this, but never try. I just checked that there are some evidence that "require bb"
should work, so it's possible and I think it would be a better way to handle this. I will re-work on it and
send v2, thanks!

Thanks,
Jackie

> 
> >
> >>
> >> 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