Re: [PATCH 2/2] meson.build: Detect bzip2 program

From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
To: "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] meson.build: Detect bzip2 program
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 20:50:09 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4372ebb1-3f86-a8e5-e140-13cb37f72e40@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210114174509.2944817-3-philmd@redhat.com>

On 01/14/21 18:45, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> The --enable-bzip2/--disable-bzip2 configure arguments are
> somehow misleading, they check for the bzip2 library, not
> the bzip2 program.
> 
> We need the bzip2 program to install the EDK2 firmware blobs
> (see commit 623ef637a2e "configure: Check bzip2 is available").
> 
> Check if the bzip2 program in the global meson.build to avoid
> the configuration to succeed, but a later when trying to install
> the firmware blobs:
> 
>     ../pc-bios/meson.build:5:2: ERROR: Program 'bzip2' not found
> 
> Reported-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
> Suggested-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> Fixes: c8d5450bba3 ("configure: move install_blobs from configure to meson")
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
> ---
>  meson.build         | 2 ++
>  pc-bios/meson.build | 1 -
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/meson.build b/meson.build
> index ecc45d04d6a..954152c90fe 100644
> --- a/meson.build
> +++ b/meson.build
> @@ -96,6 +96,8 @@
>    endforeach
>  endif
>  
> +bzip2 = find_program('bzip2', required: install_edk2_blobs)
> +
>  ##################
>  # Compiler flags #
>  ##################
> diff --git a/pc-bios/meson.build b/pc-bios/meson.build
> index 6a341b6cea0..af95c5d1f1d 100644
> --- a/pc-bios/meson.build
> +++ b/pc-bios/meson.build
> @@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
>  if install_edk2_blobs
> -  bzip2 = find_program('bzip2', required: true)
>    fds = [
>      'edk2-aarch64-code.fd',
>      'edk2-arm-code.fd',
> 

Right, this looks sensible; still it makes me think patch#1 is only prep
for this. (That's OK, but then patch#1 should say so.)

Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>

Thanks
laszlo