From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Herve Codina Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 11:31:24 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 04/15] package/pkg-generic.mk: Fix .la files overwrite detection In-Reply-To: <20210621214223.GC44262@scaer> References: <20210621141130.48654-1-herve.codina@bootlin.com> <20210621141130.48654-5-herve.codina@bootlin.com> <20210621214223.GC44262@scaer> Message-ID: <20210622113124.7cf2dde1@bootlin.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi, On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 23:42:23 +0200 "Yann E. MORIN" wrote: > On 2021-06-21 16:11 +0200, Herve Codina spake thusly: > > During per-package build, original .la files are modified by > > fixup-libtool-files calls. > > But since fixup-libtool-files modifies files using sed --in-place, > > these modification are done using a temporary file and a call to > > rename. Rename breaks the hardlink to the original file and leave the > > temporary file in per-package TARGET dir. > > As the original file is not modified, this is no longer considered as > > an overwrite. > > > > To fix this detection, this patch simply considers the what is done > > by fixup-libtool-files is part of the original snapshot used to > > detect overwrites. And so, the original snapshot is taken after > > fixup-libtool-files call. > > Then this should be squashed together with the first patch, to avoid > introducing the issue just to fix it a few patches down the series. > > You should however add a note about that in the commit log of the first > patch, of course, to explain why the overwrite ifnra is inserted after > the .la tweaks. > > So, I agree with the explanations, which make sense, but I disagree that > it should be a separate patch... > Well, I have seen this when I created the patches. I kept them separate because on the first patch, I introduced the tool to check the overwrites and i would like it to take its snapshot as soon as possible in the build sequence (ie right after collecting dependencies files and taking snapshots for current package statistics). Then I fixed the issue seen by the overwrites detection and I put at the same level fixing host-e2fsprogs, fixing .la files or a bit later fixing python with one patch per fix to detail (or try to detail) the issue and the way I fixed it. Squashing the 2 patches leads to one patch that introduces the tool and fixes one of the issues detected by the tool. What about the others issues detected ? Squash also together with the first patch ? I think it will produce a huge patch quite complicate to understand even with all individual commit message squashed. However, that being said, I can squash this patch (Fix .la files overwrite detection) with the 1st one (detect files overwritten in TARGET_DIR and HOST_DIR) if you still think it will be better. Regards, Herv? Codina -- Herv? Codina, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com