Re: [PATCH] Introduce SCRIPTSDIR variable

[vijai kumar <vijaikumar.kanagarajan@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3364 bytes --]



On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 2:00:50 PM UTC+5:30, vijai kumar wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 10:19 PM Baurzhan Ismagulov <ibr@radix50.net> 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > Hello Vijai Kumar, 
> > 
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 01:05:20AM +0530, Vijai Kumar K wrote: 
> > > ISARROOT is mostly used with wic implemetation for the scripts 
> > > directory. Introduce SCRIPTSDIR to satisfy wic. 
> > > 
> > > When ISARROOT equivalent is needed, derive it from SCRIPTSDIR. 
> > 
> > Thanks for pursuing this annoying issue. I like the concept of having a 
> special 
> > variable for the directory. The advantage is that the code doesn't rely 
> on a 
> > specific directory structure. 
> > 
> > Now the patch fails to apply upon d90c2ab "wic-img: allow wic to find 
> bitbake 
> > binary", submitted shortly before yours. Looking at both together, I 
> realize 
> > that deriving the ISARROOT equivalent from SCRIPTSDIR makes it rely on 
> the 
> > directory structure again. 
>
> Yes. Indeed. Please see comments below. 
>
> > 
> > One possibilty would be to introduce both SCRIPTSDIR and the ISARROOT 
> > equivalent (calling it e.g. ISARDIR). What do you think? 
>
> Hi Baurzhan, 
>
> From the current ISAR next, there are atleast 4 different uses cases 
> for ISARROOT, 
>
> 1. ISARROOT to find scripts directory for wic. 
> 2. ISARROOT to find bitbake/bin directory for wic. 
> 3. ISARROOT used as part of chown brought in by 
> f13b2bf71dd841eaebbbcd04f14a7fbcb2649572 to fix __pycache__ 
> permission. 
> 4. ISARROOT in ci-build.sh 
>
> The first one could be addressed by a dedicated SCRIPTSDIR variable. 
> Second one could also be a dedicated variable? like BITBAKEDIR?? 
> Third one I am not sure if we could use any other location for stat. 
> Since in my build __pycache_ is created only in scripts/lib/wic/ 
> folder. In that case maybe we could stat LAYERDIR_core instead of 
> ISARROOT. 
> Fourth one can be replaced with a combination of getting 
> LAYERDIR_{core/isar} from bitbake -e and probably a new variable for 
> testsuite directory or any other way to get the gpg-keys path. 
>
> I am just thinking if we should straight away adapt an ISARROOT 
> equivalent (ISARDIR) and have developers use those to to derive any 
> future 
> paths, or should we have dedicated variables to limit developers to 
> certain paths which are absolutely needed(SCRIPTSDIR, TESTSUITEDIR, 
> BITBAKEDIR etc). 
>

I will send a V2 with this approach for review. It can be further
discussed on top of that I guess.
 
Thanks,
Vijai Kumar K


> I would opt the latter, as it would avoid unnecessary duplicate 
> definitions for the same path. For ex. path to meta can be 
> ${ISARROOT}/meta or could just be ${LAYERDIR_core}. Also this means 
> that we would establish the directory relationship at setup time, 
> easier to change or override in future without affecting large part of 
> the codebase. 


> Thanks, 
> Vijai Kumar K 
>
>
> > 
> > With kind regards, 
> > Baurzhan. 
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "isar-users" group. 
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to isar-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. 
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/isar-users/20200405164943.mccmlrje526qxyw3%40yssyq.m.ilbers.de. 
>
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5054 bytes --]