fs/iso9660: add dependencies for make source
PATCH 1/1 fs/iso9660: add dependencies for make source
The "iso image" rootfs target is a special one, as it does not use the ROOTFS_TARGET infrastructure. The absence of ROOTFS_*_DEPENDENCIES variable makes "make source" to skip this target's dependencies (namely host-cdrkit and it's children) obstructing an offline build.
--- fs/iso9660/iso9660.mk | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
fs/iso9660/iso9660.mk +2 -0
@@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ ISO9660_TARGET_DIR = $(BUILD_DIR)/iso9660 ISO9660_BOOT_MENU := $(call qstrip,$(BR2_TARGET_ROOTFS_ISO9660_BOOT_MENU)) +ROOTFS_ISO9660_DEPENDENCIES = host-cdrkit host-fakeroot linux rootfs-cpio grub + $(BINARIES_DIR)/rootfs.iso9660: host-cdrkit host-fakeroot linux rootfs-cpio grub @$(call MESSAGE,"Generating root filesystem image rootfs.iso9660") mkdir -p $(ISO9660_TARGET_DIR)
Signature · 1 line
1.7.10.4
PATCH 1/1 fs/iso9660: add dependencies for make source
Hi Karoly, all
Quoted 24 lines · Karoly Kasza
The "iso image" rootfs target is a special one, as it does not use the
ROOTFS_TARGETinfrastructure. The absence of ROOTFS_*_DEPENDENCIES variable makes "make source" to skip this target's dependencies (namely host-cdrkit and it's children) obstructing an offline build.Signed-off-by Karoly Kasza <[email protected]>--- fs/iso9660/iso9660.mk | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)fs/iso9660/iso9660.mk +2
-1@@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ ISO9660_TARGET_DIR = $(BUILD_DIR)/iso9660 ISO9660_BOOT_MENU := $(call qstrip,$(BR2_TARGET_ROOTFS_ISO9660_BOOT_MENU)) +ROOTFS_ISO9660_DEPENDENCIES = host-cdrkit host-fakeroot linux rootfs-cpio grub + $(BINARIES_DIR)/rootfs.iso9660: host-cdrkit host-fakeroot linux rootfs-cpio grub @$(call MESSAGE,"Generating root filesystem image rootfs.iso9660") mkdir -p $(ISO9660_TARGET_DIR) --
Quoted 1 line
1.7.10.4
How about putting the dependencies variables on the top ? Also, please keep the dependencies alphabetically sorted. I know they are not ordered the line below, but it would be nice.
Quoted 5 lines
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot at busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
PATCH 1/1 fs/iso9660: add dependencies for make source
Quoted 7 lines · Maxime Hadjinlian
Hi Karoly, all
Quoted 4 lines · Karoly Kasza
The "iso image" rootfs target is a special one, as it does not use the
ROOTFS_TARGETinfrastructure. The absence of ROOTFS_*_DEPENDENCIES variable makes "make source" to skip this target's dependencies (namely host-cdrkit and it's children) obstructing an offline build.
Good catch!
Quoted 14 lines
Quoted 14 lines
Signed-off-by Karoly Kasza <[email protected]>--- fs/iso9660/iso9660.mk | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)fs/iso9660/iso9660.mk +0
-0@@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ ISO9660_TARGET_DIR = $(BUILD_DIR)/iso9660 ISO9660_BOOT_MENU := $(call qstrip,$(BR2_TARGET_ROOTFS_ISO9660_BOOT_MENU))
Quoted 3 lines
fs/iso9660/iso9660.mk line 15
Quoted 3 lines
fs/iso9660/iso9660.mk +2
-0+ROOTFS_ISO9660_DEPENDENCIES = host-cdrkit host-fakeroot linux rootfs-cpio grub + $(BINARIES_DIR)/rootfs.iso9660: host-cdrkit host-fakeroot linux rootfs-cpio grub
You should use $(ROOTFS_ISO9660_DEPENDENCIES) here.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
fs/iso9660/iso9660.mk +0
-1@$(call MESSAGE,"Generating root filesystem image rootfs.iso9660") mkdir -p $(ISO9660_TARGET_DIR) --1.7.10.4
How about putting the dependencies variables on the top ? Also, please keep the dependencies alphabetically sorted. I know they are not ordered the line below, but it would be nice.
Well, now they're ordered according to how they appear in the makefiles, i.e.
first the real packages, then the kernel, then the rootfs, then the bootloader.
Hm, actually, the bootloader should come before the kernel in that reasoning...
So alphabetically is probably better :-)
Regards,
Arnout
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 5 lines
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot at busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot at busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
Signature · 6 lines
Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F
PATCH 1/1 fs/iso9660: add dependencies for make source
Hi,
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
+ROOTFS_ISO9660_DEPENDENCIES = host-cdrkit host-fakeroot linux
rootfs-cpio grub
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
+
$(BINARIES_DIR)/rootfs.iso9660: host-cdrkit host-fakeroot linuxrootfs-cpio grub
You should use $(ROOTFS_ISO9660_DEPENDENCIES) here.
Why? Non of the other rootfs target makefiles use that (fs/*/*.mk).
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 3 lines
How about putting the dependencies variables on the top ? Also, please keep the dependencies alphabetically sorted. I know they are not ordered the line below, but it would be nice.
Well, now they're ordered according to how they appear in the makefiles,
i.e.
first the real packages, then the kernel, then the rootfs, then the bootloader.
Quoted 5 lines
Hm, actually, the bootloader should come before the kernel in that
reasoning...So alphabetically is probably better :-)
Technically, the dependencies variable is already at the top, before the first make target.
Also, it's not on the exact top of the file in any other rootfs target makefiles.
Regarding the order: I don't really think that matters.
Regards,
Karoly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20141018/89f7f1cc/attachment.html>
PATCH 1/1 fs/iso9660: add dependencies for make source
Dear K?roly Kasza,
Quoted 3 lines · K?roly Kasza
Quoted 2 lines
You should use $(ROOTFS_ISO9660_DEPENDENCIES) here.
Why? Non of the other rootfs target makefiles use that (
fs/*/*.mk).
All the other rootfs target makefiles use <foo>_DEPENDENCIES. Except that it's taken into account directly by the common filesystem logic in fs/common.mk. However, iso9660 is special, and therefore we handle the dependencies manually. But still, there's no need to repeat them twice. So, in your patch, change:
ROOTFS_ISO9660_DEPENDENCIES = host-cdrkit host-fakeroot linux rootfs-cpio grub
$(BINARIES_DIR)/rootfs.iso9660: host-cdrkit host-fakeroot linux rootfs-cpio grub
To:
ROOTFS_ISO9660_DEPENDENCIES = host-cdrkit host-fakeroot linux rootfs-cpio grub
$(BINARIES_DIR)/rootfs.iso9660: $(ROOTFS_ISO9660_DEPENDENCIES)
Quoted 2 lines
Technically, the dependencies variable is already at the top, before the first make target.
Agreed.
Quoted 1 line
Regarding the order: I don't really think that matters.
Well, it's indeed just a subjective thing, like most coding style things. Still, when a core Buildroot contributor such as Arnout suggests coding style changes, it's usually a good idea to follow suit to get the patch merged quickly :)
That being said, I agree that we don't enforce any particular order for the dependencies in the other packages.
Best regards,
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
PATCH 1/1 fs/iso9660: add dependencies for make source
Quoted 29 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 4 lines
You should use $(ROOTFS_ISO9660_DEPENDENCIES) here.
Why? Non of the other rootfs target makefiles use that (
fs/*/*.mk).All the other rootfs target makefiles use <foo>_DEPENDENCIES. Except that it's taken into account directly by the common filesystem logic in
fs/common.mk. However, iso9660 is special, and therefore we handle the dependencies manually. But still, there's no need to repeat them twice. So, in your patch, change:
ROOTFS_ISO9660_DEPENDENCIES= host-cdrkit host-fakeroot linux rootfs-cpio grub$(BINARIES_DIR)/rootfs.iso9660: host-cdrkit host-fakeroot linux rootfs-cpio grub
To:
ROOTFS_ISO9660_DEPENDENCIES= host-cdrkit host-fakeroot linux rootfs-cpio grub$(BINARIES_DIR)/rootfs.iso9660: $(ROOTFS_ISO9660_DEPENDENCIES)
Oh, that's correct. I misunderstood the first proposal of Arnout.
Regarding the order: I don't really think that matters.
Quoted 8 lines
Well, it's indeed just a subjective thing, like most coding style things. Still, when a core Buildroot contributor such as Arnout suggests coding style changes, it's usually a good idea to follow suit to get the patch merged quickly :)
That being said, I agree that we don't enforce any particular order for the dependencies in the other packages.
OK, but this means the changing of the order of dependencies is not at all connected with
the original purpose of this patch, also everywhere else it should be changed I guess.
I'll send a V2.
Best regards,
Karoly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20141018/c653e863/attachment.html>
PATCH 1/1 fs/iso9660: add dependencies for make source
Dear K?roly Kasza,
Quoted 3 lines · K?roly Kasza
OK, but this means the changing of the order of dependencies is not at all connected with the original purpose of this patch, also everywhere else it should be changed I guess.
I agree the order of the dependencies is a separate thing. And it's also a bit strange to enforce an ordering for this case, while we do not have such a rule for all other packages.
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com