pkg-kconfig: add missing -patch dependency for defconfig
PATCH 1/1 pkg-kconfig: add missing -patch dependency for defconfig
Since the introduction of _KCONFIG_DEFCONFIG in 8ef62b99, the package's .config file no longer depends on anything (unless a fragment is defined). Therefore, there is no dependency anymore between .config and <pkg>-patch. Thus, it is possible that the .config file is attempted to be built before the package is extracted and patched. Usually this works out OK because <pkg>-patch will always be done before <pkg>-configure, but it will fail when the user calls <pkg>-menuconfig explicitly. It will also fail when we enable top-level parallel build.
To solve this, just add an explicit order-only dependency on <pkg>-patch. It really is only necessary when _KCONFIG_DEFCONFIG is defined and _KCONFIG_FRAGMENT_FILES is not, but it doesn't hurt to add it unconditionally.
--- package/pkg-kconfig.mk | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
package/pkg-kconfig.mk +5 -0
@@ -72,6 +72,11 @@ $$($(2)_DIR)/.config: $$($(2)_KCONFIG_FILE) $$($(2)_KCONFIG_FRAGMENT_FILES) $$(Q)yes "" | $$($(2)_MAKE_ENV) $$(MAKE) -C $$($(2)_DIR) \ $$($(2)_KCONFIG_OPTS) oldconfig +# If _KCONFIG_FILE or _KCONFIG_FRAGMENT_FILES exists, this dependency is +# already implied, but if we only have a _KCONFIG_DEFCONFIG we have to add +# it explicitly. It doesn't hurt to always have it though. +$$($(2)_DIR)/.config: | $(1)-patch + # In order to get a usable, consistent configuration, some fixup may be needed. # The exact rules are specified by the package .mk file. define $(2)_FIXUP_DOT_CONFIG
Signature · 1 line
2.7.0
PATCH 1/1 pkg-kconfig: add missing -patch dependency for defconfig
Arnout, All,
On 2016-01-24 23:58 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) spake thusly:
Quoted 26 lines
Since the introduction of
_KCONFIG_DEFCONFIGin8ef62b99, the package's .config file no longer depends on anything (unless a fragment is defined). Therefore, there is no dependency anymore between .config and <pkg>-patch. Thus, it is possible that the .config file is attempted to be built before the package is extracted and patched. Usually this works out OK because <pkg>-patch will always be done before <pkg>-configure, but it will fail when the user calls <pkg>-menuconfig explicitly. It will also fail when we enable top-level parallel build.To solve this, just add an explicit order-only dependency on <pkg>-patch. It really is only necessary when
_KCONFIG_DEFCONFIGis defined and_KCONFIG_FRAGMENT_FILESis not, but it doesn't hurt to add it unconditionally.Reported-by FrAnKenStEiN MC <[email protected]>--- package/pkg-kconfig.mk | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)package/pkg-kconfig.mk +0
-0
package/pkg-kconfig.mk $$($(2)_DIR)/.config: $$($(2)_KCONFIG_FILE) $$($(2)_KCONFIG_FRAGMENT_FILES) · line 78
Quoted 7 lines
package/pkg-kconfig.mk +4
-0@@ -72,6 +72,11 @@ $$($(2)_DIR)/.config: $$($(2)_KCONFIG_FILE) $$($(2)_KCONFIG_FRAGMENT_FILES) $$(Q)yes "" | $$($(2)_MAKE_ENV) $$(MAKE) -C $$($(2)_DIR) \ $$($(2)_KCONFIG_OPTS) oldconfig +# If _KCONFIG_FILE or _KCONFIG_FRAGMENT_FILES exists, this dependency is +# already implied, but if we only have a _KCONFIG_DEFCONFIG we have to add +# it explicitly. It doesn't hurt to always have it though. +$$($(2)_DIR)/.config: | $(1)-patch
I don't understand why this is needed.
On line 65, we have;
$$($(2)_DIR)/.config: $$($(2)_KCONFIG_FILE) $$($(2)_KCONFIG_FRAGMENT_FILES)and on line 52;
$$($(2)_KCONFIG_FILE) $$($(2)_KCONFIG_FRAGMENT_FILES): | $(1)-patchSo, unless I'm missing something, $$($(2)_DIR)/.config already has a dependency on $(1)-patch via $$($(2)_KCONFIG_FILE)
Oh, damn, I see it now... Grr...
OK, so what made me understand is the comment in the code:
[...] if we only have a _KCONFIG_DEFCONFIG [...]
Ok, so it goes thusly:
- if using a defconfig file, we do not have a $(2)_KCONFIG_FILE
- if at the same time, we have no fragments, we have no rule from
.config to $(1)-patch.
OK, fine by me. Thanks!
Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.
Quoted 10 lines
package/pkg-kconfig.mk +0
-0# In order to get a usable, consistent configuration, some fixup may be needed. # The exact rules are specified by the package .mk file. define $(2)_FIXUP_DOT_CONFIGSignature · 6 lines
2.7.0 _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot at busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
Signature · 6 lines
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
Thomas Petazzoni
AppliedPATCH 1/1 pkg-kconfig: add missing -patch dependency for defconfig
In reply to Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind)Dear Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind),
Quoted 15 lines · Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind)
Since the introduction of
_KCONFIG_DEFCONFIGin8ef62b99, the package's .config file no longer depends on anything (unless a fragment is defined). Therefore, there is no dependency anymore between .config and <pkg>-patch. Thus, it is possible that the .config file is attempted to be built before the package is extracted and patched. Usually this works out OK because <pkg>-patch will always be done before <pkg>-configure, but it will fail when the user calls <pkg>-menuconfig explicitly. It will also fail when we enable top-level parallel build.To solve this, just add an explicit order-only dependency on <pkg>-patch. It really is only necessary when
_KCONFIG_DEFCONFIGis defined and_KCONFIG_FRAGMENT_FILESis not, but it doesn't hurt to add it unconditionally.
Quoted 5 lines
Reported-by FrAnKenStEiN MC <[email protected]>--- package/pkg-kconfig.mk | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
Applied, thanks.
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com