Re: [PATCH v6 1/9] isar-bootstrap-host: disable DISTRO_BOOTSTRAP_KEYS usage

[Claudius Heine <claudius.heine.ext@siemens.com>]

On 22/05/2019 13.35, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 22.05.19 09:31, Claudius Heine wrote:
>> Hi Jan,
>>
>> On 22/05/2019 09.02, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 22.05.19 08:55, Maxim Yu. Osipov wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/19 8:37 AM, Claudius Heine wrote:
>>>>> Hi Jan,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 21/05/2019 18.56, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>> On 15.05.19 12:11, [ext] claudius.heine.ext@siemens.com wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Claudius Heine <ch@denx.de>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> isar-bootstrap-host only supports bootstrapping Debian root file
>>>>>>> systems. Therefore deactivate any DISTRO_BOOTSTRAP_KEYS from other
>>>>>>> distributions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually not totally true, as I just realized: What about 
>>>>>> bootstrapping the buildchroot from a custom debian repo that was 
>>>>>> differently signed (e.g. because it is a condensed version of 
>>>>>> upstream)? Seems we do need HOST_DISTRO_BOOTSTRAP_KEYS, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> You are right, I haven't considered that case. Well, the next task 
>>>>> on the todo list should probably be to refactor and streamline the 
>>>>> isar-bootstrap, and especially the host bootstrap process and fix 
>>>>> those kind of issues while doing that.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a lot of possible customization options gained if the 
>>>>> current giant bootstrap function would be split up, similar to how 
>>>>> the rootfs system works in the pre-processing patchset.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe it makes sense to also start renaming "host" and "target" to 
>>>>> be compatible with the gcc nomenclature [1] in that patchset. I am 
>>>>> a bit reluctant to do so, because of the breakage involved. But the 
>>>>> further we wait, to more stuff will break downstream.
>>>>>
>>>>> The plan would be to rename all occurrences of "host" to "build" 
>>>>> and "target" to "host". That would lead to the following recipe 
>>>>> changes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "buildchroot-host" -> "buildchroot-build"
>>>>> "buildchroot-target" -> "buildchroot-host"
>>>>> "isar-bootstrap-host" -> "isar-bootstrap-build"
>>>>> "isar-bootstrap-target" -> "isar-bootstrap-host"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I am on the fence of that change. Correctness vs. no-breakage
>>>>>
>>>>> Any comments about that?
>>>>
>>>> I would prefer to avoid such a renaming taking into account needed 
>>>> efforts and possible confusion for current Isar users.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is that build/host scheme then also in line with Debian naming? Then 
>>> there will be eventually no way around it anyway. But we really need 
>>> to do this thoroughly, specifically /wrt to user-visible interfaces, 
>>> so that it will be one cut only.
>>
>>  From dpkg-buildpackage(1):
>>
>> [...]
>>         -a, --host-arch architecture
>>                Specify  the  Debian  architecture  we  build  for 
>> (long option since dpkg
>>                1.17.17).  The architecture of the  machine  we  build 
>> on  is determined
>>                automatically, and is also the default for the host 
>> machine.
>> [...]
>>         --target-arch architecture
>>                Specify  the  Debian architecture the binaries built 
>> will build for (since
>>                dpkg 1.17.17).  The default value is the host machine.
>> [...]
>>
> 
> Then the current naming scheme is already accurate for Debian.

No? That is not how I read that documentation. "Host" is what we build 
for and 'Target' is what the binaries we build generate code for (which 
makes only sense for compilers)

Claudius

> 
> Jan
> 

-- 
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