[RFC PATCH v2 0/1] Special debian depends entries

[RFC PATCH v2 0/1] Special debian depends entries

[Claudius Heine]

Hi,

here is a new version of my patch done with python code instead of shell
code.

Cheers,
Claudius

Claudius Heine (1):
  meta/dpkg-raw: support for special debian package dependencies

 meta/classes/dpkg-raw.bbclass | 12 ++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

-- 
2.14.3

[RFC PATCH v2 1/1] meta/dpkg-raw: support for special debian package dependencies

[Claudius Heine]

Now special debian dependencies can be specified in the recipe like
this:

    DEBIAN_DEPENDS = "'libc (>= 2.16)' 'tar | bsdtar' systemd"

and the package contains this 'Depends' entry:

    Depends: libc (>= 2.16), tar | bsdtar, systemd

Signed-off-by: Claudius Heine <ch@denx.de>
---
 meta/classes/dpkg-raw.bbclass | 12 ++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta/classes/dpkg-raw.bbclass b/meta/classes/dpkg-raw.bbclass
index 1435e10..60c1170 100644
--- a/meta/classes/dpkg-raw.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/dpkg-raw.bbclass
@@ -19,6 +19,15 @@ addtask install after do_unpack before do_deb_package_prepare
 # so we can put hooks etc. in there already
 do_install[dirs] = "${D}/DEBIAN"
 
+python () {
+    import re
+    debian_deps = d.getVar("DEBIAN_DEPENDS", True)
+    regex = re.compile(r"'([^']+)'|\"([^\"]+)\"|([^ ]+)")
+    debian_deps_comma = ", ".join([s for m in regex.finditer(debian_deps)
+                                     for s in m.groups() if s])
+    d.setVar("DEBIAN_DEPENDS_COMMA", debian_deps_comma)
+}
+
 do_deb_package_prepare() {
 	cat<<-__EOF__ > ${D}/DEBIAN/control
 		Package: ${PN}
@@ -32,8 +41,7 @@ do_deb_package_prepare() {
 	if [ ${DEBIAN_DEPENDS} != "" ]
 	then
 		echo -n Depends: >> ${D}/DEBIAN/control
-		echo ${DEBIAN_DEPENDS} | tr '[:blank:]' ',' >> \
-			${D}/DEBIAN/control
+		echo " ${DEBIAN_DEPENDS_COMMA}" >> ${D}/DEBIAN/control
 	fi
 	for t in pre post
 	do
-- 
2.14.3

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] Special debian depends entries

[Claudius Heine]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1201 bytes --]

On Fri, 2017-12-15 at 09:08 +0100, Claudius Heine wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> here is a new version of my patch done with python code instead of
> shell
> code.

Hi,

Henning and me were currently discussing the options here, and we might
need some referee to decide how to proceed:

So the options are backwards compatibility vs. avoiding complexity.

I think this code is not too complex, and backwards compatibility is
nice to have. We don't know how many people use dpkg-raw and fixing it
in a backwards compatible way saves time overall.

Henning thinks that backwards compatibility is not an issue, because
its easy to fix in the recipes and the complexity that goes with it has
to be avoided, because there might be bugs inside, and we have to fix
them over and over.

Both vaild arguments IMO.

Cheers,
Claudius

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-54 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: ch@denx.de

            PGP key: 6FF2 E59F 00C6 BC28 31D8 64C1 1173 CB19 9808 B153
                              Keyserver: hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] Special debian depends entries

[Henning Schild]

Am Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:30:42 +0100
schrieb Claudius Heine <ch@denx.de>:

> On Fri, 2017-12-15 at 09:08 +0100, Claudius Heine wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > here is a new version of my patch done with python code instead of
> > shell
> > code.  
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Henning and me were currently discussing the options here, and we
> might need some referee to decide how to proceed:
> 
> So the options are backwards compatibility vs. avoiding complexity.
> 
> I think this code is not too complex, and backwards compatibility is
> nice to have. We don't know how many people use dpkg-raw and fixing it
> in a backwards compatible way saves time overall.
> 
> Henning thinks that backwards compatibility is not an issue, because
> its easy to fix in the recipes and the complexity that goes with it
> has to be avoided, because there might be bugs inside, and we have to
> fix them over and over.
> 
> Both vaild arguments IMO.

Alex, are you waiting for someone to jump in on this? Maybe you should
just call it and merge one of the two patches.

With the introduction of BASE_APT Isar might have to actually
understand/use the contents of DEBIAN_DEPENDS. And in this case it might
make sense to format it in a way that is bitbake-friendly and stick
with space-separation and the patch Claudius suggested.

Henning
 
> Cheers,
> Claudius
> 

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] Special debian depends entries

[Alexander Smirnov]

Hi all,

On 01/03/2018 07:08 PM, Henning Schild wrote:
> Am Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:30:42 +0100
> schrieb Claudius Heine <ch@denx.de>:
> 
>> On Fri, 2017-12-15 at 09:08 +0100, Claudius Heine wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> here is a new version of my patch done with python code instead of
>>> shell
>>> code.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Henning and me were currently discussing the options here, and we
>> might need some referee to decide how to proceed:
>>
>> So the options are backwards compatibility vs. avoiding complexity.
>>
>> I think this code is not too complex, and backwards compatibility is
>> nice to have. We don't know how many people use dpkg-raw and fixing it
>> in a backwards compatible way saves time overall.
>>

In my opinion backward compatibility is not so critical for current 
implementation, especially because current DEBIAN_DEPENDS is a bit 
'inconsistent' due to missed version specificators. So in theory in some 
environment the build could failed due to invalid apt version. Therefor 
I'd prefer to force Isar users to fix their recipes now.

>> Henning thinks that backwards compatibility is not an issue, because
>> its easy to fix in the recipes and the complexity that goes with it
>> has to be avoided, because there might be bugs inside, and we have to
>> fix them over and over.
>>
>> Both vaild arguments IMO.
> 
> Alex, are you waiting for someone to jump in on this? Maybe you should
> just call it and merge one of the two patches.

Working on base-apt I've faced with the problem how to get dependency 
tree for current build. So atm I'm thinking about generalization of 
DEBIAN_DEPENDS variable and moving this code (patching debian/control) 
to dpkg-base class.

Do you think it makes sense for now?

> 
> With the introduction of BASE_APT Isar might have to actually
> understand/use the contents of DEBIAN_DEPENDS. And in this case it might
> make sense to format it in a way that is bitbake-friendly and stick
> with space-separation and the patch Claudius suggested.
> 

base-apt is created using multistrap, so it's a good question which 
input format multistrap accepts. Probably no one from proposed formats 
will work as it is.

Alex

> Henning
>   
>> Cheers,
>> Claudius
>>
>