Julien Lepiller <jul...@lepiller.eu> writes: > 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.
Yes, android-platform-build is an artifact from an early revision. Taking a version argument is done mainly in order to be able to use the 'android-platform-version' variable everywhere, instead of updating it multiple places. > 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? The patch was lifted from the master branch which likely won't be included in a tag before Android 8. It fixes references to the logging library, which indeed should probably be propagated. I will try incorporating the Arch patch later today.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
