| Message ID | 1396870039-26834-3-git-send-email-ming.liu@windriver.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
diff --git a/meta/classes/binconfig.bbclass b/meta/classes/binconfig.bbclass index 7158c8c..c5503b7 100644 --- a/meta/classes/binconfig.bbclass +++ b/meta/classes/binconfig.bbclass @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -FILES_${PN}-dev += "${bindir}/*-config" +FILES_${PN}-dev += "${bindir}/*-config.${PACKAGE_ARCH}" # The namespaces can clash here hence the two step replace def get_binconfig_mangle(d): @@ -31,14 +31,21 @@ BINCONFIG_GLOB ?= "*-config" PACKAGE_PREPROCESS_FUNCS += "binconfig_package_preprocess" binconfig_package_preprocess () { - for config in `find ${PKGD} -name '${BINCONFIG_GLOB}'`; do - sed -i \ - -e 's:${STAGING_BASELIBDIR}:${base_libdir}:g;' \ - -e 's:${STAGING_LIBDIR}:${libdir}:g;' \ - -e 's:${STAGING_INCDIR}:${includedir}:g;' \ - -e 's:${STAGING_DATADIR}:${datadir}:' \ - -e 's:${STAGING_DIR_HOST}${prefix}:${prefix}:' \ - $config + for config in `find ${PKGD}${bindir} -name '${BINCONFIG_GLOB}'`; do + if [ -h $config ]; then + real_config=`readlink $config` + unlink $config + ( cd ${PKGD}${bindir} ; ln -sf $real_config.${PACKAGE_ARCH} $config.${PACKAGE_ARCH} ) + else + sed -i \ + -e 's:${STAGING_BASELIBDIR}:${base_libdir}:g;' \ + -e 's:${STAGING_LIBDIR}:${libdir}:g;' \ + -e 's:${STAGING_INCDIR}:${includedir}:g;' \ + -e 's:${STAGING_DATADIR}:${datadir}:' \ + -e 's:${STAGING_DIR_HOST}${prefix}:${prefix}:' \ + $config + mv $config $config.${PACKAGE_ARCH} + fi done for lafile in `find ${PKGD} -name "*.la"` ; do sed -i \ @@ -51,6 +58,46 @@ binconfig_package_preprocess () { done } +BINCONFIG_PRIORITY ?= "${@int(d.getVar('PV',1).split('-')[0].split('+')[0].split('.')[0]) * 10000 + \ + int(d.getVar('PV',1).split('-')[0].split('+')[0].split('.')[1]) * 100 + \ + int(d.getVar('PV',1).split('-')[0].split('+')[0].split('.')[-1])}" + +PACKAGESPLITFUNCS_prepend = "populate_packages_binconfig " + +# +# Fix binconfig conflicts among multilib packages +# +python populate_packages_binconfig () { + import os, glob + + pkg = d.getVar('PN', True) + '-dev' + dvar = d.getVar('PKGD', True) + bindir = d.getVar('bindir', True) + binconfig_glob = d.getVar('BINCONFIG_GLOB', True) + binconfig_priority = d.getVar('BINCONFIG_PRIORITY', True) + binconfig_setup_links = "" + binconfig_remove_links = "" + for file in glob.glob(dvar + bindir + os.sep + binconfig_glob + '.' + d.getVar('PACKAGE_ARCH', True)): + binconfig_target = os.path.basename(file) + binconfig_name = binconfig_target[:binconfig_target.find('.')] + binconfig_link = bindir + os.sep + binconfig_name + binconfig_setup_links += '\tupdate-alternatives --install %s %s %s %s\n' % (binconfig_link, binconfig_name, binconfig_target, binconfig_priority) + binconfig_remove_links += '\tupdate-alternatives --remove %s %s\n' % (binconfig_name, binconfig_target) + + if binconfig_setup_links: + provider = d.getVar('VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_update-alternatives', True) + if provider: + d.appendVar('RDEPENDS_%s' % pkg, ' ' + d.getVar('MLPREFIX') + provider) + + postinst = d.getVar('pkg_postinst_%s' % pkg, True) or '#!/bin/sh\n' + postinst += binconfig_setup_links + d.setVar('pkg_postinst_%s' % pkg, postinst) + + postrm = d.getVar('pkg_postrm_%s' % pkg, True) or '#!/bin/sh\n' + postrm += binconfig_remove_links + d.setVar('pkg_postrm_%s' % pkg, postrm) +} + SYSROOT_PREPROCESS_FUNCS += "binconfig_sysroot_preprocess" binconfig_sysroot_preprocess () {
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 19:27 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: > In most cases binconfig files conflict among multilib packages, to avoid > that, use update-alternatives link *-config from real path with a > PACKAGE_ARCH suffix. > > Signed-off-by: Ming Liu <ming.liu@windriver.com> > --- > meta/classes/binconfig.bbclass | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) This isn't going in, its complex and supports a minority use case. binconfig should be dying out, not being extended and shored up like this. I'd also add this patch is buggy, its pure luck that update-alternatives is available at rootfs generation time since its not in a visible dependency. So going forward I'd like to see patches which simply delete binconfig scripts. Where there isn't a .pc alternative we should be adding them and pushing them upstream. Cheers, Richard
On 04/07/2014 07:36 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 19:27 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: >> In most cases binconfig files conflict among multilib packages, to avoid >> that, use update-alternatives link *-config from real path with a >> PACKAGE_ARCH suffix. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ming Liu <ming.liu@windriver.com> >> --- >> meta/classes/binconfig.bbclass | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > This isn't going in, its complex and supports a minority use case. > binconfig should be dying out, not being extended and shored up like > this. > > I'd also add this patch is buggy, its pure luck that update-alternatives > is available at rootfs generation time since its not in a visible > dependency. > > So going forward I'd like to see patches which simply delete binconfig > scripts. Where there isn't a .pc alternative we should be adding them > and pushing them upstream. Did you mean we'd better remove all *-config scripts, insteaded by providing .pc files, and send the changes to all upstreams providing and using *-config? That seems a huge work and we need co-operate with a lot of projects. //Ming Liu > > Cheers, > > Richard > > > > >
On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 10:27 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: > On 04/07/2014 07:36 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 19:27 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: > >> In most cases binconfig files conflict among multilib packages, to avoid > >> that, use update-alternatives link *-config from real path with a > >> PACKAGE_ARCH suffix. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ming Liu <ming.liu@windriver.com> > >> --- > >> meta/classes/binconfig.bbclass | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > >> 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > This isn't going in, its complex and supports a minority use case. > > binconfig should be dying out, not being extended and shored up like > > this. > > > > I'd also add this patch is buggy, its pure luck that update-alternatives > > is available at rootfs generation time since its not in a visible > > dependency. > > > > So going forward I'd like to see patches which simply delete binconfig > > scripts. Where there isn't a .pc alternative we should be adding them > > and pushing them upstream. > Did you mean we'd better remove all *-config scripts, insteaded by > providing .pc files, and send the changes to all upstreams providing and > using *-config? That seems a huge work and we need co-operate with a lot > of projects. Basically, yes, that is what I mean. I might be wrong but I don't think there are that many projects which don't ship .pc files now and just have a binconfig as a backup. Cheers, Richard
On 04/08/2014 06:03 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 10:27 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: >> On 04/07/2014 07:36 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>> On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 19:27 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: >>>> In most cases binconfig files conflict among multilib packages, to avoid >>>> that, use update-alternatives link *-config from real path with a >>>> PACKAGE_ARCH suffix. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ming Liu <ming.liu@windriver.com> >>>> --- >>>> meta/classes/binconfig.bbclass | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >>>> 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>> This isn't going in, its complex and supports a minority use case. >>> binconfig should be dying out, not being extended and shored up like >>> this. >>> >>> I'd also add this patch is buggy, its pure luck that update-alternatives >>> is available at rootfs generation time since its not in a visible >>> dependency. >>> >>> So going forward I'd like to see patches which simply delete binconfig >>> scripts. Where there isn't a .pc alternative we should be adding them >>> and pushing them upstream. >> Did you mean we'd better remove all *-config scripts, insteaded by >> providing .pc files, and send the changes to all upstreams providing and >> using *-config? That seems a huge work and we need co-operate with a lot >> of projects. > Basically, yes, that is what I mean. I might be wrong but I don't think > there are that many projects which don't ship .pc files now and just > have a binconfig as a backup. Yes, I also noticed that many of them are providing .pc files as well as binconfig as a backup, so I think there must be reasons binconfig remained in their projects, that might be for compliable considering, so I am not sure they would like to remove them from their projects, but I can try to ping them. Nevertheless, the conflicts still exist, we just leave them here so far? //Ming Liu > > Cheers, > > Richard > > > >
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 14:41 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: > On 04/08/2014 06:03 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 10:27 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: > >> On 04/07/2014 07:36 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > >>> On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 19:27 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: > >>>> In most cases binconfig files conflict among multilib packages, to avoid > >>>> that, use update-alternatives link *-config from real path with a > >>>> PACKAGE_ARCH suffix. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Ming Liu <ming.liu@windriver.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> meta/classes/binconfig.bbclass | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > >>>> 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > >>> This isn't going in, its complex and supports a minority use case. > >>> binconfig should be dying out, not being extended and shored up like > >>> this. > >>> > >>> I'd also add this patch is buggy, its pure luck that update-alternatives > >>> is available at rootfs generation time since its not in a visible > >>> dependency. > >>> > >>> So going forward I'd like to see patches which simply delete binconfig > >>> scripts. Where there isn't a .pc alternative we should be adding them > >>> and pushing them upstream. > >> Did you mean we'd better remove all *-config scripts, insteaded by > >> providing .pc files, and send the changes to all upstreams providing and > >> using *-config? That seems a huge work and we need co-operate with a lot > >> of projects. > > Basically, yes, that is what I mean. I might be wrong but I don't think > > there are that many projects which don't ship .pc files now and just > > have a binconfig as a backup. > Yes, I also noticed that many of them are providing .pc files as well as > binconfig as a backup, so I think there must be reasons binconfig > remained in their projects, that might be for compliable considering, > so I am not sure they would like to remove them from their projects, but > I can try to ping them. Nevertheless, the conflicts still exist, we just > leave them here so far? I'm thinking we should start deleting the -config files at do_install time where we know a good .pc file exists and remove the binconfig inherit. If this causes any problem in software using the package, we should fix those to use pkgconfig. Over time the conflicts will stop existing since the binconfig class will not be used anywhere. Cheers, Richard
On 04/09/2014 05:42 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 14:41 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: >> On 04/08/2014 06:03 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>> On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 10:27 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: >>>> On 04/07/2014 07:36 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 19:27 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: >>>>>> In most cases binconfig files conflict among multilib packages, to avoid >>>>>> that, use update-alternatives link *-config from real path with a >>>>>> PACKAGE_ARCH suffix. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ming Liu <ming.liu@windriver.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> meta/classes/binconfig.bbclass | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >>>>>> 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>>>> This isn't going in, its complex and supports a minority use case. >>>>> binconfig should be dying out, not being extended and shored up like >>>>> this. >>>>> >>>>> I'd also add this patch is buggy, its pure luck that update-alternatives >>>>> is available at rootfs generation time since its not in a visible >>>>> dependency. >>>>> >>>>> So going forward I'd like to see patches which simply delete binconfig >>>>> scripts. Where there isn't a .pc alternative we should be adding them >>>>> and pushing them upstream. >>>> Did you mean we'd better remove all *-config scripts, insteaded by >>>> providing .pc files, and send the changes to all upstreams providing and >>>> using *-config? That seems a huge work and we need co-operate with a lot >>>> of projects. >>> Basically, yes, that is what I mean. I might be wrong but I don't think >>> there are that many projects which don't ship .pc files now and just >>> have a binconfig as a backup. >> Yes, I also noticed that many of them are providing .pc files as well as >> binconfig as a backup, so I think there must be reasons binconfig >> remained in their projects, that might be for compliable considering, >> so I am not sure they would like to remove them from their projects, but >> I can try to ping them. Nevertheless, the conflicts still exist, we just >> leave them here so far? > I'm thinking we should start deleting the -config files at do_install > time where we know a good .pc file exists and remove the binconfig > inherit. If this causes any problem in software using the package, we > should fix those to use pkgconfig. > > Over time the conflicts will stop existing since the binconfig class > will not be used anywhere. Yes, that's a feasible solution, but it needs a lot of testing works, unfortunately, I am a little busy with my daily work recently and cant handle it parallelly, so I'd like to file a bug in Yocto, see if anybody like to take it, or I will do it when I can tear myself away from work later. //Ming Liu > > Cheers, > > Richard > > > > >
On 04/09/2014 06:01 PM, Ming Liu wrote: > On 04/09/2014 05:42 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >> On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 14:41 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: >>> On 04/08/2014 06:03 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>> On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 10:27 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: >>>>> On 04/07/2014 07:36 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 19:27 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: >>>>>>> In most cases binconfig files conflict among multilib packages, >>>>>>> to avoid >>>>>>> that, use update-alternatives link *-config from real path with a >>>>>>> PACKAGE_ARCH suffix. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ming Liu <ming.liu@windriver.com> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> meta/classes/binconfig.bbclass | 65 >>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>>>>> This isn't going in, its complex and supports a minority use case. >>>>>> binconfig should be dying out, not being extended and shored up like >>>>>> this. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd also add this patch is buggy, its pure luck that >>>>>> update-alternatives >>>>>> is available at rootfs generation time since its not in a visible >>>>>> dependency. >>>>>> >>>>>> So going forward I'd like to see patches which simply delete >>>>>> binconfig >>>>>> scripts. Where there isn't a .pc alternative we should be adding >>>>>> them >>>>>> and pushing them upstream. >>>>> Did you mean we'd better remove all *-config scripts, insteaded by >>>>> providing .pc files, and send the changes to all upstreams >>>>> providing and >>>>> using *-config? That seems a huge work and we need co-operate with >>>>> a lot >>>>> of projects. >>>> Basically, yes, that is what I mean. I might be wrong but I don't >>>> think >>>> there are that many projects which don't ship .pc files now and just >>>> have a binconfig as a backup. >>> Yes, I also noticed that many of them are providing .pc files as >>> well as >>> binconfig as a backup, so I think there must be reasons binconfig >>> remained in their projects, that might be for compliable considering, >>> so I am not sure they would like to remove them from their projects, >>> but >>> I can try to ping them. Nevertheless, the conflicts still exist, we >>> just >>> leave them here so far? >> I'm thinking we should start deleting the -config files at do_install >> time where we know a good .pc file exists and remove the binconfig >> inherit. If this causes any problem in software using the package, we >> should fix those to use pkgconfig. >> >> Over time the conflicts will stop existing since the binconfig class >> will not be used anywhere. > Yes, that's a feasible solution, but it needs a lot of testing works, > unfortunately, I am a little busy with my daily work recently and cant > handle it parallelly, so I'd like to file a bug in Yocto, see if > anybody like to take it, or I will do it when I can tear myself away > from work later. Seems we already have the defect record, and Qi Chen has been working on that for a while, see the following: https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2453 //Ming Liu > > //Ming Liu >> >> Cheers, >> >> Richard >> >> >> >> >> >
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 18:01 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: > On 04/09/2014 05:42 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 14:41 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: > >> On 04/08/2014 06:03 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > >>> On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 10:27 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: > >>>> On 04/07/2014 07:36 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 19:27 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: > >>>>>> In most cases binconfig files conflict among multilib packages, to avoid > >>>>>> that, use update-alternatives link *-config from real path with a > >>>>>> PACKAGE_ARCH suffix. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ming Liu <ming.liu@windriver.com> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> meta/classes/binconfig.bbclass | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > >>>>> This isn't going in, its complex and supports a minority use case. > >>>>> binconfig should be dying out, not being extended and shored up like > >>>>> this. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'd also add this patch is buggy, its pure luck that update-alternatives > >>>>> is available at rootfs generation time since its not in a visible > >>>>> dependency. > >>>>> > >>>>> So going forward I'd like to see patches which simply delete binconfig > >>>>> scripts. Where there isn't a .pc alternative we should be adding them > >>>>> and pushing them upstream. > >>>> Did you mean we'd better remove all *-config scripts, insteaded by > >>>> providing .pc files, and send the changes to all upstreams providing and > >>>> using *-config? That seems a huge work and we need co-operate with a lot > >>>> of projects. > >>> Basically, yes, that is what I mean. I might be wrong but I don't think > >>> there are that many projects which don't ship .pc files now and just > >>> have a binconfig as a backup. > >> Yes, I also noticed that many of them are providing .pc files as well as > >> binconfig as a backup, so I think there must be reasons binconfig > >> remained in their projects, that might be for compliable considering, > >> so I am not sure they would like to remove them from their projects, but > >> I can try to ping them. Nevertheless, the conflicts still exist, we just > >> leave them here so far? > > I'm thinking we should start deleting the -config files at do_install > > time where we know a good .pc file exists and remove the binconfig > > inherit. If this causes any problem in software using the package, we > > should fix those to use pkgconfig. > > > > Over time the conflicts will stop existing since the binconfig class > > will not be used anywhere. > Yes, that's a feasible solution, but it needs a lot of testing works, > unfortunately, I am a little busy with my daily work recently and cant > handle it parallelly, so I'd like to file a bug in Yocto, see if anybody > like to take it, or I will do it when I can tear myself away from work > later. Agreed, I'm not asking you personally to do all of this, just suggesting that ultimately this is the route we need to take. Cheers, Richard
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 18:07 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: > On 04/09/2014 06:01 PM, Ming Liu wrote: > > On 04/09/2014 05:42 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > >> On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 14:41 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: > >>> On 04/08/2014 06:03 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > >>>> On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 10:27 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: > >>>>> On 04/07/2014 07:36 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > >>>>>> On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 19:27 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: > >>>>>>> In most cases binconfig files conflict among multilib packages, > >>>>>>> to avoid > >>>>>>> that, use update-alternatives link *-config from real path with a > >>>>>>> PACKAGE_ARCH suffix. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ming Liu <ming.liu@windriver.com> > >>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>> meta/classes/binconfig.bbclass | 65 > >>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > >>>>>> This isn't going in, its complex and supports a minority use case. > >>>>>> binconfig should be dying out, not being extended and shored up like > >>>>>> this. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'd also add this patch is buggy, its pure luck that > >>>>>> update-alternatives > >>>>>> is available at rootfs generation time since its not in a visible > >>>>>> dependency. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So going forward I'd like to see patches which simply delete > >>>>>> binconfig > >>>>>> scripts. Where there isn't a .pc alternative we should be adding > >>>>>> them > >>>>>> and pushing them upstream. > >>>>> Did you mean we'd better remove all *-config scripts, insteaded by > >>>>> providing .pc files, and send the changes to all upstreams > >>>>> providing and > >>>>> using *-config? That seems a huge work and we need co-operate with > >>>>> a lot > >>>>> of projects. > >>>> Basically, yes, that is what I mean. I might be wrong but I don't > >>>> think > >>>> there are that many projects which don't ship .pc files now and just > >>>> have a binconfig as a backup. > >>> Yes, I also noticed that many of them are providing .pc files as > >>> well as > >>> binconfig as a backup, so I think there must be reasons binconfig > >>> remained in their projects, that might be for compliable considering, > >>> so I am not sure they would like to remove them from their projects, > >>> but > >>> I can try to ping them. Nevertheless, the conflicts still exist, we > >>> just > >>> leave them here so far? > >> I'm thinking we should start deleting the -config files at do_install > >> time where we know a good .pc file exists and remove the binconfig > >> inherit. If this causes any problem in software using the package, we > >> should fix those to use pkgconfig. > >> > >> Over time the conflicts will stop existing since the binconfig class > >> will not be used anywhere. > > Yes, that's a feasible solution, but it needs a lot of testing works, > > unfortunately, I am a little busy with my daily work recently and cant > > handle it parallelly, so I'd like to file a bug in Yocto, see if > > anybody like to take it, or I will do it when I can tear myself away > > from work later. > Seems we already have the defect record, and Qi Chen has been working on > that for a while, see the following: > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2453 That bug suggests we have .pc files for all -config files. We would therefore next need to follow through and remove all the -config files entirely and just rely on the .pc files. We should open an enhancement request for that. Cheers, Richard
In most cases binconfig files conflict among multilib packages, to avoid that, use update-alternatives link *-config from real path with a PACKAGE_ARCH suffix. Signed-off-by: Ming Liu <ming.liu@windriver.com> --- meta/classes/binconfig.bbclass | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)