Re: [PATCH 1/6] meta/dpkg: Make 'do_unpack' more generic, prepare for pulling out

[Henning Schild <henning.schild@siemens.com>]

Am Fri, 8 Sep 2017 10:44:29 +0200
schrieb Claudius Heine <ch@denx.de>:

> Hi,
> 
> On 08.09.2017 10:30, Henning Schild wrote:
> > Am Tue, 5 Sep 2017 10:37:48 +0300
> > schrieb Alexander Smirnov <asmirnov@ilbers.de>:
> >   
> >> Hi,
> >>  
> >>>> On 09/04/2017 05:11 PM, Alexander Smirnov wrote:    
> >>>>> On 08/30/2017 10:03 PM, Henning Schild wrote:    
> >>>>>> Issue:
> >>>>>> The unpacker in dpkg is not generic since it does not unpack to
> >>>>>> WORKDIR, so it can not be pulled into a more generic class to
> >>>>>> make it available for other users.
> >>>>>>    
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As I already wrote to mail-list, WORKDIR and BUILDROOT are
> >>>>> different folders, and there was the reason to do so.    
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes we (Henning and I) get that. That is the reason why the
> >>>> patch includes the line:
> >>>>
> >>>> +WORKDIR_task-unpack = "${BUILDROOT}"
> >>>>
> >>>> That means that only for the unpack task in the dpkg.bbclass the 
> >>>> variable WORKDIR is set to the BUILDROOT variable. This makes
> >>>> the unpack step more generic so that it can be moved to the base
> >>>> class. Essentially removing the dependency of the unpack task to
> >>>> the dpkg class.    
> >>>
> >>> Does this mean that "log.do_unpack" and "run.do_unpack" will be
> >>> stored in buildchroot? Let me check this.
> >>>     
> >>
> >> Yes it does:
> >>
> >> ls 
> >> isar/build/tmp/work/buildchroot/debian-wheezy-armhf/rootfs/home/builder/hello/temp/
> >>
> >> log.do_unpack
> >> log.do_unpack.19557
> >> log.task_order
> >> run.do_unpack
> >> run.do_unpack.19557
> >>
> >> While it's assumed that they should be stored in: 
> >> isar/build/tmp/work/hello-0.1+g7f35942-1-r0/temp/  
> > 
> > I think i am starting to understand the whole problem with the
> > WORKDIR and the BUILDROOT better. Instead of the unpacking to
> > BUILDROOT or messing with WORKDIR i think we should have a new task
> > after do_unpack
> > 
> > So instead of do_unpack -> BUILDROOT
> > 
> > do_unpack archive -> WORKDIR
> > do_copy_to_buildroot WORKDIR -> BUILDROOT
> > 
> > That should keep all the logs in an unmodified WORKDIR and the
> > unpacker would always extract to there. Classes that need the files
> > to live in BUILDROOT would have to include the task
> > do_copy_to_buildroot.  
> 
> I agree with that separating those into two tasks is the better
> solution, but I don't like the 'copy_to_buildroot' name, because it
> limits possible implementations of this task by that name. For
> instance you could, and maybe even should, use a bind mount instead
> of copying the files around.
> 
> Something like "populate" or "prepare" as a prefix sounds a bit
> better IMO.

Agreed, i will think of a better name.

Henning

> Cheers,
> Claudius
>