Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] meta: u-boot: Prepare for newer versions

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>]

On 26.11.21 07:07, vijai kumar wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:04 PM Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 25.11.21 17:27, vijai kumar wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 12:12 PM vijai kumar
>>> <vijaikumar.kanagarajan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 3:24 PM Gylstorff Quirin
>>>> <quirin.gylstorff@siemens.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/22/21 4:26 PM, Vijai Kumar K wrote:
>>>>>> Newer versions of u-boot require libssl-dev:native for compilation.
>>>>>> It also needs libssl-dev of the host architecture for cross compilation
>>>>>> of tools.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vijai Kumar K <Vijaikumar_Kanagarajan@mentor.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>   meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-custom.inc | 4 +++-
>>>>>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-custom.inc b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-custom.inc
>>>>>> index 5198809..cfae0e2 100644
>>>>>> --- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-custom.inc
>>>>>> +++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-custom.inc
>>>>>> @@ -41,7 +41,9 @@ python() {
>>>>>>               d.setVar('U_BOOT_BUILD_PROFILES_remove', "config")
>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -DEBIAN_BUILD_DEPENDS ?= "bc, bison, flex, device-tree-compiler, git"
>>>>>> +DEBIAN_BUILD_DEPENDS ?= "bc, bison, flex, device-tree-compiler, git, libssl-dev:native"
>>>>>> +DEBIAN_BUILD_DEPENDS += "${@', libssl-dev' \
>>>>>> +     if bb.utils.contains('U_BOOT_BUILD_PROFILES', 'tools', 1, 0, d) else ''}"
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there are reason why you didn't use `Build-Depends syntax extension`
>>>>> from[1]?
>>>>>
>>>> Hi Quirin,
>>>>
>>>> Yes. There was. The previous version of patch depends on
>>>> ISAR_CROSS_COMPILE as well.
>>>>
>>>> Guess there is nothing stopping us now. But, wondering if we can start
>>>> introducing it via some
>>>> example app with some documentation so that basic users are not
>>>> puzzled on seeing that line in
>>>> a recipe.
>>>>
>>>> Also, we could define a whole new variable to help recipe writers to
>>>> define profiles and seamlessly
>>>> use them without the need to explicitly export DEB_BUILD_PROFILES in
>>>> the recipe's dpkg_runbuild
>>>>
>>>> Now that we are serious enough, we should probably take care of your
>>>> earlier comment
>>>> as well on following the standard. So that we don't conflict with
>>>> Debian's predefined variables in case
>>>> we decided to build a package fetched from apt:// and wanted to make
>>>> use of its profile settings.
>>>>
>>>> Still need to look further but these are my initial thoughts. I could
>>>> probably send some patches for review in
>>>> coming days.
>>>>
>>>> For now, maybe we should call it and use pkg.uboot.tools instead of
>>>> tools here so that we don't
>>>> find something in that implementation that requires us to change this
>>>> in future, possibly breaking
>>>> u-boot / or the need to provide compatibility.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> OTOH, This could still go in. Since the design I am thinking of is not
>>> finalized and might take some discussions in the list, there is no
>>> point in holding this back.
>>>
>>
>> I think Quirin was just asking for
>>
>> DEBIAN_BUILD_DEPENDS ?= "bc, bison, flex, device-tree-compiler, git, \
>>         libssl-dev:native, libssl-dev <tools>"
>>
>> rather than using bitbake logic. If that also works, would be more elegant.
> 
> Yes, that also works. But just a bit difficult to read for normal users.

It's more Debian-style, thus to be preferred according to Isar principles.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, T RDA IOT
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux