From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Hilliard Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 23:47:32 -0700 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 5/5 v5] boot/systemd-boot: new package In-Reply-To: <6c1edf5d-e6b3-9453-96a3-4f7aa9480a44@mind.be> References: <6c1edf5d-e6b3-9453-96a3-4f7aa9480a44@mind.be> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 4:47 PM Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > > > On 26/12/2018 09:52, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > > Since systemd-boot is really part of systemd, when systemd is enabled > > (as an init system), we rely on it to build the boot blobs, and > > systemd-boot (this package) is not available. > > > > Now, when systemd is not enabled, systemd-boot (this package) will > > actually build the boot blobs, and only that. No userspace tool is > > built. > > I really don't like this approach of copying systemd. > > I would instead try harder to keep the standalone version part of the systemd > package itself. Yes, I realize that I'm coming very late with this... The only > reason we got here is this statement from Yann: > > >> What is wrong is that it makes the systemd package *and* the init > >> selectionmuch more copmplex, and this is not acceptable (IMHO). > >> > >> I'd rather have a second package that is trivial, with mimimum, if at > >> all, changes in the main systemd package. > > The second package turns out not to be trivial at all... > > So, looking back to James's original v2 patch, I'd structure the Config.in > something like this: > > config BR2_PACKAGE_SYSTEMD > bool > depends on BR2_PACKAGE_SYSTEMD_ARCH_SUPPORTS > depends on ... > # select any dependency that is relevant for system-boot > > config BR2_PACKAGE_SYSTEMD_BOOT > bool > > menuconfig BR2_PACKAGE_SYSTEMD_SYSTEMD > depends on BR2_PACKAGE_SYSTEMD > # addition depends/selects that are relevant for full systemd > > # rest of the file stays the same > > > Note that BR2_PACKAGE_SYSTEMD was never user-selectable because it was always > implicit from BR2_INIT_SYSTEMD, so it's OK to turn it into a blind option. > > Note that we will need to declare the symbol BR2_PACKAGE_SYSTEMD_BOOT option > twice: in the standalone systemd-boot case, we need the symbol declared > somewhere so it can be selected by BR2_TARGET_SYSTEMD_BOOT. > > Finally note that I fully agree that we should not even start support for > standalone systemd-boot until upstream progresses into making it buildable > standalone. I really don't want that huge patch either. But that's independent > of how standalone systemd-boot is implemented. I came up with a significantly smaller patch I'm working on getting merged into upstream https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/11294/files. > > Regards, > Arnout