Hi Mark,
Thanks for your detailed comment.
On 2012年03月13日 02:54, Mark Hatle wrote:
Apologies for the very late review... see comments below. All in all
it looks good. But I have not applied it and tried it yet.
On 3/3/12 4:54 AM, Xiaofeng Yan wrote:
From: Xiaofeng Yan<xiaofeng....@windriver.com>
Support the following functions in this bbclass:
1 Archive sources in ${S} in the different stage to tarball
(do_unpack,do_patch,do_configure).
2 Archive patches including series to tarball
3 Archive logs including scripts (.bb and .inc files) to tarball
4 dump environment resources which show all variable and functions to be
used to xxx.showdata.dump when running a task
5 dump all content in 's' including patches to file xxx.diff.gz
All of tarballs will be deployed to ${DEPLOY_DIR}/sources/
[#YOCTO 1977]
Signed-off-by: Xiaofeng Yan<xiaofeng....@windriver.com>
---
meta/classes/archiver.bbclass | 393
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 files changed, 393 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 meta/classes/archiver.bbclass
...
+def verify_var(d):
+ '''check the type for archiving package('tar' or 'srpm')'''
+ try:
+ if d.getVar('SOURCE_ARCHIVE_PACKAGE_TYPE', True).upper() not in
d.getVar('ARCHIVE_TYPE', True).split():
+ raise AttributeError
+ except AttributeError:
+ bb.fatal("\"SOURCE_ARCHIVE_PACKAGE_TYPE\" is \'tar\' or \'srpm\',
no other types")
Error message should be something like:
bb.fatal("\"SOURCE_ARCHIVE_PACKAGE_TYPE\" should be \'tar\' or '\srpm\'")
Thanks for correcting my grammar.
...
+def archive_sources_patches(d,middle_name):
+ '''archive sources and patches to tarball. middle_name will append
strings ${middle_name} to ${PR} as middle name. for example,
zlib-1.4.6-prepatch(middle_name).tar.gz '''
+ verify_var(d)
+ if not_tarball(d):
+ return
+
+ source_tar_name = archive_sources(d,middle_name)
+ if middle_name == "prepatch":
+ if d.getVar('PATCHES_ARCHIVE_WITH_SERIES',True).upper() == 'TRUE':
+ patch_tar_name = select_archive_patches(d,"all")
+ elif d.getVar('PATCHES_ARCHIVE_WITH_SERIES',True).upper() == 'FALSE':
+ patch_tar_name = select_archive_patches(d,"applying")
+ else:
+ bb.fatal("Please define 'PATCHES_ARCHIVE_WITH_SERIES' is strings
'True' or 'False' ")
Instead of an explicit TRUE/FALSE setting, does it make sense for one
to be the default? I'd suspect in this case "True" is the better
default, but I'm not completely sure.
I can move this setting to local.conf.sample and TRUE is default setting.
+ else:
+ patch_tar_name = ''
+
+ if d.getVar('SOURCE_ARCHIVE_PACKAGE_TYPE', True).upper() not in
'SRPM':
+ move_tarball_deploy(d,[source_tar_name,patch_tar_name])
+
+def archive_sources_patches_logs_copyleft(d,middle_name):
+ '''archive source, patches and logs according to the variable
"COPYLEFT_COMPLIANCE", If this variable is 'True', then archive the
packages for copy-left, or else archive all packages'''
+ verify_var(d)
+ if not_tarball(d):
+ return
+ copyleft_compliance = d.getVar('COPYLEFT_COMPLIANCE', True)
+ if copyleft_compliance is None:
+ archive_sources_patches(d,middle_name)
+ elif copyleft_compliance.upper() == 'TRUE' and archive_copyleft(d):
+ archive_sources_patches(d,middle_name)
I'm not sure I understand what is happening in this patch. The way I
read it:
If COPYLEFT_COMPLIANCE is -not- set, then we archive.. otherwise if it
is set (true), and the copyleft item was inherited we also archive?
If COPYLEFT_COMPLIANCE is -not- set, then we archive all resources
without considering copyrights problem which is typed in
copyleft_compliance.bbclass.
otherwise if it is set (true), and the copyleft item was inherited we
only archive packages which be allowed by copyleft.
But I'm not sure I understand why this set of checks.
...
+def dumpdata(d):
+ '''dump environment to "${P}-${PR}.showdata.dump" including all
kinds of varibale and functions when running a task'''
Simple typo above, should be "variable".
Thanks for your detailed reviewing.
...
+# This functions prepare for archiving "linux-yocto" because this
package create directory 's' before do_patch instead of after do_unpack.
+# This is special control for archiving linux-yocto only.
+python do_archive_linux_yocto(){
+ s = d.getVar('S', True)
+ if 'linux-yocto' in s:
+ source_tar_name = archive_sources(d,'')
+ if d.getVar('SOURCE_ARCHIVE_PACKAGE_TYPE', True).upper() not in
'SRPM':
+ move_tarball_deploy(d,[source_tar_name,''])
+}
Is there something we can change in linux-yocto to make the standard
methods work? I'm hesitant to put special logic in the archiver class
for a single package. (Note, I'm more likely to think it's reasonable
for the kernel's package then a random userspace package!)
because the 's' is created after do_kernel_checkout (after do_unpack
before do_patch), so we will not get original sources for kernel if we
archive 's' after do_unpack.
Some bb files do some changes after do_unpack before do_patch actually .
The following bb files are the case. Perhaps some other bb files could
also change some stuff before do_patch in future. So I archive sources
codes in do_unpack[postfuncs] instead of do_patch[prefuncs].
meta$ grep "do_unpack_append" . -nr
./recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc_2.15.bb:76:do_unpack_append() {
./recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc_2.13.bb:73:do_unpack_append() {
./recipes-sato/web/web_git.bb:19:do_unpack_append () {
./recipes-extended/ltp/ltp_20120104.bb:46:do_unpack_append() {
+do_kernel_checkout[postfuncs] += "do_archive_linux_yocto "
+
Is the real issue that we want to run something just before do_patch,
but we also want to let any arbitrary tasks between do_unpack and
do_patch to run first? Is there an alternative way to state this? [or
at least detect a situation where we haven't waited?]
My reasons why doing this is same as above
+# remove tarball for sources, patches and logs after creating srpm.
+python do_remove_tarball(){
+ if d.getVar('SOURCE_ARCHIVE_PACKAGE_TYPE', True).upper() == 'SRPM':
+ work_dir = d.getVar('WORKDIR', True)
+ os.chdir(work_dir)
+ for file in os.listdir(os.getcwd()):
+ if '.tar.gz' in file:
+ os.remove(file)
+}
+do_remove_taball[deptask] = "do_archive_scripts_logs"
+do_package_write_rpm[postfuncs] += "do_remove_tarball "
Finally do we really need to remove the tarball? It can likely just
stay around, when the user wipes out/cleans the WORKDIR it will go
away on it's own?
These archiving packages will waste much disk space, so I will remove
them after srpm package generating. but that just seemed excessive, right?
Thanks for your comment again.
--Mark
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
