[PATCH] initramfs-framework: split setup-live and install-efi into separate recipes

[PATCH] initramfs-framework: split setup-live and install-efi into separate recipes

[California Sullivan]

Having these the initramfs-framework recipe forced initramfs-framework
users to build several tools they didn't need, and made it more
difficult to declare the recipe as allarch.

Fixes [YOCTO #12024].

Signed-off-by: California Sullivan <california.l.sullivan@intel.com>
---
 .../initrdscripts/initramfs-framework_1.0.bb         | 20 ++------------------
 .../initramfs-module-install-efi_1.0.bb              | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 .../initrdscripts/initramfs-module-setup-live_1.0.bb | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-module-install-efi_1.0.bb
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-module-setup-live_1.0.bb

diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-framework_1.0.bb b/meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-framework_1.0.bb
index 77b2ff8..c07a5fc 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-framework_1.0.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-framework_1.0.bb
@@ -14,8 +14,7 @@ SRC_URI = "file://init \
            file://udev \
            file://e2fs \
            file://debug \
-           file://setup-live \
-           file://install-efi.sh"
+          "
 
 S = "${WORKDIR}"
 
@@ -27,9 +26,6 @@ do_install() {
     install -m 0755 ${WORKDIR}/rootfs ${D}/init.d/90-rootfs
     install -m 0755 ${WORKDIR}/finish ${D}/init.d/99-finish
 
-    # setup-live
-    install -m 0755 ${WORKDIR}/setup-live ${D}/init.d/80-setup-live
-
     # mdev
     install -m 0755 ${WORKDIR}/mdev ${D}/init.d/01-mdev
 
@@ -42,9 +38,6 @@ do_install() {
     # debug
     install -m 0755 ${WORKDIR}/debug ${D}/init.d/00-debug
 
-    # install-efi
-    install -m 0755 ${WORKDIR}/install-efi.sh ${D}/init.d/install-efi.sh
-
     # Create device nodes expected by some kernels in initramfs
     # before even executing /init.
     install -d ${D}/dev
@@ -57,8 +50,7 @@ PACKAGES = "${PN}-base \
             initramfs-module-e2fs \
             initramfs-module-rootfs \
             initramfs-module-debug \
-            initramfs-module-setup-live \
-            initramfs-module-install-efi"
+           "
 
 FILES_${PN}-base = "/init /init.d/99-finish /dev"
 
@@ -78,10 +70,6 @@ SUMMARY_initramfs-module-udev = "initramfs support for udev"
 RDEPENDS_initramfs-module-udev = "${PN}-base udev"
 FILES_initramfs-module-udev = "/init.d/01-udev"
 
-SUMMARY_initramfs-module-setup-live = "initramfs support for setup live"
-RDEPENDS_initramfs-module-setup-live = "${PN}-base udev-extraconf"
-FILES_initramfs-module-setup-live = "/init.d/80-setup-live"
-
 SUMMARY_initramfs-module-e2fs = "initramfs support for ext4/ext3/ext2 filesystems"
 RDEPENDS_initramfs-module-e2fs = "${PN}-base"
 FILES_initramfs-module-e2fs = "/init.d/10-e2fs"
@@ -93,7 +81,3 @@ FILES_initramfs-module-rootfs = "/init.d/90-rootfs"
 SUMMARY_initramfs-module-debug = "initramfs dynamic debug support"
 RDEPENDS_initramfs-module-debug = "${PN}-base"
 FILES_initramfs-module-debug = "/init.d/00-debug"
-
-SUMMARY_initramfs-module-install-efi = "initramfs support for installation option"
-RDEPENDS_initramfs-module-install-efi = "${PN}-base parted e2fsprogs-mke2fs dosfstools util-linux-blkid"
-FILES_initramfs-module-install-efi = "/init.d/install-efi.sh"
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-module-install-efi_1.0.bb b/meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-module-install-efi_1.0.bb
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8143f31
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-module-install-efi_1.0.bb
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+SUMMARY = "initramfs-framework module for installation option"
+LICENSE = "MIT"
+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${COREBASE}/meta/COPYING.MIT;md5=3da9cfbcb788c80a0384361b4de20420"
+RDEPENDS_${PN} = "initramfs-framework-base parted e2fsprogs-mke2fs dosfstools util-linux-blkid"
+
+PR = "r1"
+
+FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/initramfs-framework:"
+SRC_URI = "file://install-efi.sh"
+
+S = "${WORKDIR}"
+
+do_install() {
+    install -d ${D}/init.d
+    install -m 0755 ${WORKDIR}/install-efi.sh ${D}/init.d/install-efi.sh
+}
+
+FILES_${PN} = "/init.d/install-efi.sh"
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-module-setup-live_1.0.bb b/meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-module-setup-live_1.0.bb
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7627cdc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-module-setup-live_1.0.bb
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+SUMMARY = "initramfs-framework module for live booting"
+LICENSE = "MIT"
+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${COREBASE}/meta/COPYING.MIT;md5=3da9cfbcb788c80a0384361b4de20420"
+RDEPENDS_${PN} = "initramfs-framework-base udev-extraconf"
+
+PR = "r1"
+
+FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/initramfs-framework:"
+SRC_URI = "file://setup-live"
+
+S = "${WORKDIR}"
+
+do_install() {
+    install -d ${D}/init.d
+    install -m 0755 ${WORKDIR}/setup-live ${D}/init.d/80-setup-live
+}
+
+FILES_${PN} = "/init.d/80-setup-live"
-- 
2.9.5

Re: [PATCH] initramfs-framework: split setup-live and install-efi into separate recipes

[Otavio Salvador]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:04 PM, California Sullivan
<california.l.sullivan@intel.com> wrote:
> Having these the initramfs-framework recipe forced initramfs-framework
> users to build several tools they didn't need, and made it more
> difficult to declare the recipe as allarch.
>
> Fixes [YOCTO #12024].
>
> Signed-off-by: California Sullivan <california.l.sullivan@intel.com>

The patch should be based on the allarch patch I sent as it adds the
dependencies on the whitelist. So you can also set them as allarch.

Please also move the scripts to specific directories. As it is not include

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Re: [PATCH] initramfs-framework: split setup-live and install-efi into separate recipes

[Patrick Ohly]

On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 15:17 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:04 PM, California Sullivan
> <california.l.sullivan@intel.com> wrote:
> > Having these the initramfs-framework recipe
> > forced initramfs-framework
> > users to build several tools they didn't need, and made it more
> > difficult to declare the recipe as allarch.
> > 
> > Fixes [YOCTO #12024].
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: California Sullivan <california.l.sullivan@intel.com
> > >
> 
> The patch should be based on the allarch patch I sent as it adds the
> dependencies on the whitelist. So you can also set them as allarch.

I would prefer to keep initramfs-framework-setup-live/install-efi as
arch-specific and only make initramfs-framework itself allarch. It's
just a gut feeling about the (minor) advantage of not having to rebuild
these two small recipes vs. the additional complexity of the layer.conf
and having to keep that up-to-date.

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.

Re: [PATCH] initramfs-framework: split setup-live and install-efi into separate recipes

[Otavio Salvador]

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 3:35 AM, Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 15:17 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:04 PM, California Sullivan
>> <california.l.sullivan@intel.com> wrote:
>> > Having these the initramfs-framework recipe
>> > forced initramfs-framework
>> > users to build several tools they didn't need, and made it more
>> > difficult to declare the recipe as allarch.
>> >
>> > Fixes [YOCTO #12024].
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: California Sullivan <california.l.sullivan@intel.com
>> > >
>>
>> The patch should be based on the allarch patch I sent as it adds the
>> dependencies on the whitelist. So you can also set them as allarch.
>
> I would prefer to keep initramfs-framework-setup-live/install-efi as
> arch-specific and only make initramfs-framework itself allarch. It's
> just a gut feeling about the (minor) advantage of not having to rebuild
> these two small recipes vs. the additional complexity of the layer.conf
> and having to keep that up-to-date.

The recipe is a shell script and there is no reason to not make it
allarch. The need to keep layer.conf up to date is minor as it is
going to be need only when new dependencies are added. Not ofthen...

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Re: [PATCH] initramfs-framework: split setup-live and install-efi into separate recipes

[Patrick Ohly]

On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 09:46 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 3:35 AM, Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 15:17 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:04 PM, California Sullivan
> > > <california.l.sullivan@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > Having these the initramfs-framework recipe
> > > > forced initramfs-framework
> > > > users to build several tools they didn't need, and made it more
> > > > difficult to declare the recipe as allarch.
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes [YOCTO #12024].
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: California Sullivan <california.l.sullivan@intel
> > > > .com
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > The patch should be based on the allarch patch I sent as it adds
> > > the
> > > dependencies on the whitelist. So you can also set them as
> > > allarch.
> > 
> > I would prefer to keep initramfs-framework-setup-live/install-efi
> > as
> > arch-specific and only make initramfs-framework itself allarch.
> > It's
> > just a gut feeling about the (minor) advantage of not having to
> > rebuild
> > these two small recipes vs. the additional complexity of the
> > layer.conf
> > and having to keep that up-to-date.
> 
> The recipe is a shell script and there is no reason to not make it
> allarch. The need to keep layer.conf up to date is minor as it is
> going to be need only when new dependencies are added. Not ofthen...

The need for that was already missed once, in the initial patch which
introduced "inherit allarch". I find it likely that whoever changes the
scripts in the future will also miss it, causing additional work for
those who then have to deal with the auto builder errors. At least add
a comment to the DEPENDS which explains that layer.conf needs to be
edited together with the recipe(s).

But that's just my opinion. If Richard and/or Ross aren't worried about
a too complex OE-core layer.conf, then that's fine with me too.

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.

Re: [PATCH] initramfs-framework: split setup-live and install-efi into separate recipes

[Otavio Salvador]

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 09:46 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 3:35 AM, Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 15:17 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:04 PM, California Sullivan
>> > > <california.l.sullivan@intel.com> wrote:
>> > > > Having these the initramfs-framework recipe
>> > > > forced initramfs-framework
>> > > > users to build several tools they didn't need, and made it more
>> > > > difficult to declare the recipe as allarch.
>> > > >
>> > > > Fixes [YOCTO #12024].
>> > > >
>> > > > Signed-off-by: California Sullivan <california.l.sullivan@intel
>> > > > .com
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > > The patch should be based on the allarch patch I sent as it adds
>> > > the
>> > > dependencies on the whitelist. So you can also set them as
>> > > allarch.
>> >
>> > I would prefer to keep initramfs-framework-setup-live/install-efi
>> > as
>> > arch-specific and only make initramfs-framework itself allarch.
>> > It's
>> > just a gut feeling about the (minor) advantage of not having to
>> > rebuild
>> > these two small recipes vs. the additional complexity of the
>> > layer.conf
>> > and having to keep that up-to-date.
>>
>> The recipe is a shell script and there is no reason to not make it
>> allarch. The need to keep layer.conf up to date is minor as it is
>> going to be need only when new dependencies are added. Not ofthen...
>
> The need for that was already missed once, in the initial patch which
> introduced "inherit allarch". I find it likely that whoever changes the
> scripts in the future will also miss it, causing additional work for
> those who then have to deal with the auto builder errors. At least add
> a comment to the DEPENDS which explains that layer.conf needs to be
> edited together with the recipe(s).
>
> But that's just my opinion. If Richard and/or Ross aren't worried about
> a too complex OE-core layer.conf, then that's fine with me too.

Complexity cannot be an excuse to avoid correctness. Sorry but I don't
buy your argument ...


-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750