On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 18:28:56 +0100 Marius Bakke <mba...@fastmail.com> wrote:
> Julien Lepiller <jul...@lepiller.eu> writes: > > > Hi, > > > > I wanted to use adb, so here is a patch to have it in the distro. It > > works when ran as root, or if you add some udev rules to your os > > configuration. > > > > An issue I can see with this package is that it is only a part of > > the upstream repository, which in turn is only a part of a bigger > > build system. Normally, you would download multiple repos and build > > them all together to get an android image, and some android tools > > (including adb). I don't think we want to build a full android > > image, so I wrote a recipe for adb only. > > > > I took the recipe from archlinux, as well as the patch > > (android-tools package: > > https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk?h=packages/android-tools, > > see build.sh and fix-build.patch). They use clang, but our version > > isn't able to build c++ source files (it cannot find includes such > > as <string> or <iostream>), so I fixed the source to remove clang > > dialect in adb/adb_client.h so we can build the files using gcc. > > > > Archlinux also builds fastboot and mkbootimg. Should I build them > > along with adb, or in a separate packages? > > Wow, go build system and adb in a single weekend, is it Christmas > already :) > > I happen to have a work-in-progress adb expression as well, but > creating liblog and libbase as standalone packages. Also creating > Makefiles (based on the Debian approach) instead of calling g++ > directly. > > Looking at the attached patch here, I think what's missing in my build > is the string.h inclusions. We should join efforts and get this in > ASAP! > > Attaching my patch here. I think having liblog and libbase as separate > expressions is cleaner, but creating Makefiles may be unnecessary. > WDYT? > > I also wonder if it's worth adding a snippet to each package source, > so that the source derivations only contain the files relevant to each > respective package for licensing reasons. > You're right, we should probably have separate libbase and liblog packages, so we should work from your patch. Using a Makefile is also probably cleaner than calling system*. android-platform-build appears to be unused. I think android-platform-system-core should not depend on version, because it contains a sha256 value that already restricts it to a specific version. Maybe the makefiles could be improved to allow parallel build. Although the source is not so big that it actually matters. I don't understand the purpose of libbase-use-own-logging.patch. Shouldn't liblog be a propagated input of libbase?
