[2010.02] Package infrastructure ready

Hello,

I've now completed the work I wanted to do on the new package infrastructures, and consider it ready for inclusion into the next version of Buildroot, 2010.02. I'm therefore asking people to review the patches and give their opinion and comments.

Unless there are comments, I don't plan to make any further change before officially sending these patches, right after the 2009.11 release.

The code is available at :
http://git.buildroot.net/~tpetazzoni/git/buildroot/log/?h=package-infrastructure

The documentation has been updated accordingly. I've put online the corresponding version :
http://free-electrons.com/~thomas/buildroot.html#add_packages

There are a few points on which I'd like to have your input:

* The macro for the generic package infrastructure is named PKGTARGETS, and for the autotools infrastructure, the macro is named AUTOTARGETS. I don't particularly like this naming, but what's your opinion ? Do you have other proposals ? Wouldn't something like make-generic-package and make-autotools-package be more explicit ? Too long ?

* The generic infrastructure is in package/Makefile.package.in. Maybe I should put it into package/Makefile.generic.in. What's your opinion ?

* I have a more complicated point about how the directory containing the source code is referenced from the actions listed in the PKG_xxxx_CMDS variables.

   We can use $(@D), which is the directory that contains the stamp
   file, so it is the directory that has been extracted by the tarball.
   $(@D) is short and works well in most situations.

The situation where $(@D) doesn't work is when the configure/Makefile stuff is in fact in a subdirectory of the tarball (and not in the root directory). In this case, the package should define PKG_SUBDIR = foo, and the package infrastructure will define PKG_SRCDIR. Therefore, the package should use $$($$(PKG)_SRCDIR) (double quoting needed otherwise the variable is evaluated before it is defined). I find this rather ugly.

Therefore, my proposal is :

* In the generic infrastructure, to let the .mk developer handle this problem. He has to use $(@D) or $(@D)/something.

* In the autotools infrastructure, keep the PKG_SUBDIR mechanism we add, so that the $$($$(PKG)_SRCDIR) trick is hidden in Makefile.autotools.in.

Thanks for your input,

Thomas

Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers and embedded Linux development,
consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

Hello,

Le Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:36:12 +0100,
Thomas Petazzoni <[email protected]> a ?crit :

No comments ?

I will update the patch set for 2010.02 once, but if no news are given, I'll give up with this patch set.

Cheers,

Thomas

Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers and embedded Linux development,
consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

Hi,

Thomas> No comments ?

Sorry, my kids have been ill and I didn't got to read through your series yet - Give me a day or two and I will.

Bye, Peter Korsgaard

Le Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:33:38 +0100,
Peter Korsgaard <[email protected]> a ?crit :

No problem.

The most important thing I need is an answer to the few questions I've asked in the initial e-mail of this thread (technical details on the implementation).

Thanks,

Thomas

Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers and embedded Linux development,
consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

I must have missed the patch the first time round. I'm in favour of this change, it cleans up building host packages significantly and adds some much needed documentation.

Thanks for working on this Thomas!