[poky] [PATCH 1/5] staging: Use relative path in sysroot-destdir for target recipes

[Xu, Dongxiao]

Hi Richard,

Richard Purdie wrote:
> Hi Dongxaio,
> 
> I agree with this patch as you know and I want to merge it but I'm
> not entirely sure its 100% right yet. 
> 
> On Sat, 2011-01-15 at 06:14 +0800, Dongxiao Xu wrote:
>> diff --git a/meta/classes/staging.bbclass
>> b/meta/classes/staging.bbclass index 8432565..4d2991b 100644
>> --- a/meta/classes/staging.bbclass
>> +++ b/meta/classes/staging.bbclass
>> @@ -45,25 +45,25 @@ sysroot_stage_dirs() {
>>  	from="$1"
>>  	to="$2"
>> 
>> -	sysroot_stage_dir $from${includedir} $to${STAGING_INCDIR}
>> +	sysroot_stage_dir $from${includedir} $to${includedir}
>>  	if [ "${BUILD_SYS}" = "${HOST_SYS}" ]; then
>> -		sysroot_stage_dir $from${bindir} $to${STAGING_DIR_HOST}${bindir}
>> -		sysroot_stage_dir $from${sbindir} $to${STAGING_DIR_HOST}${sbindir}
>> -		sysroot_stage_dir $from${base_bindir}
>> $to${STAGING_DIR_HOST}${base_bindir} 
>> -		sysroot_stage_dir $from${base_sbindir}
>> $to${STAGING_DIR_HOST}${base_sbindir} 
>> -		sysroot_stage_dir $from${libexecdir}
>> $to${STAGING_DIR_HOST}${libexecdir} 
>> -		sysroot_stage_dir $from${sysconfdir}
>> $to${STAGING_DIR_HOST}${sysconfdir} 
>> -		sysroot_stage_dir $from${localstatedir}
>> $to${STAGING_DIR_HOST}${localstatedir} +		sysroot_stage_dir
>> $from${bindir} $to${bindir} +		sysroot_stage_dir $from${sbindir}
>> $to${sbindir} +		sysroot_stage_dir $from${base_bindir}
>> $to${base_bindir} +		sysroot_stage_dir $from${base_sbindir}
>> $to${base_sbindir} +		sysroot_stage_dir $from${libexecdir}
>> $to${libexecdir} +		sysroot_stage_dir $from${sysconfdir}
>> $to${sysconfdir} +		sysroot_stage_dir $from${localstatedir}
>>  	$to${localstatedir}  	fi if [ -d $from${libdir} ]
>>  	then
>> -		sysroot_stage_libdir $from/${libdir} $to${STAGING_LIBDIR}
>> +		sysroot_stage_libdir $from/${libdir} $to${libdir}  	fi
>>  	if [ -d $from${base_libdir} ]
>>  	then
>> -		sysroot_stage_libdir $from${base_libdir}
>> $to${STAGING_DIR_HOST}${base_libdir} +		sysroot_stage_libdir
>> $from${base_libdir} $to${base_libdir}  	fi -	sysroot_stage_dir
>> $from${datadir} $to${STAGING_DATADIR} +	sysroot_stage_dir
>>  $from${datadir} $to${datadir} }
>> 
>>  sysroot_stage_all() {
>> @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ do_populate_sysroot[dirs] =
>>  			     "${STAGING_DIR_TARGET}/${bindir} ${STAGING_DIR_TARGE
>>  			     ${STAGING_INCDIR_NATIVE} \ ${STAGING_DATADIR} \
>>                              
>> ${SYSROOT_DESTDIR}${STAGING_DIR_TARGET} \ +                         
>> ${SYSROOT_DESTDIR}${base_prefix} \  			     ${S} ${B}" 
>> 
>>  # Could be compile but populate_sysroot and do_install shouldn't run
>> at the same time @@ -103,8 +104,8 @@ python do_populate_sysroot () {
>> 
>>  SSTATETASKS += "do_populate_sysroot"
>>  do_populate_sysroot[sstate-name] = "populate-sysroot"
>> -do_populate_sysroot[sstate-inputdirs] =
>> "${SYSROOT_DESTDIR}/${STAGING_DIR}" 
>> -do_populate_sysroot[sstate-outputdirs] = "${TMPDIR}/sysroots"
>> +do_populate_sysroot[sstate-inputdirs] =
>> "${SYSROOT_DESTDIR}/${base_prefix}"
>> +do_populate_sysroot[sstate-outputdirs] = "${STAGING_DIR_HOST}/" 
> 
> 
> The reason why is I'm still not 100% comfortable with the two lines
> above. They look unbalanced and should really be paired to match such
> that they'd either be:  
> 
> do_populate_sysroot[sstate-inputdirs] =
> "${SYSROOT_DESTDIR}/${base_prefix}" 
> do_populate_sysroot[sstate-outputdirs] =
> "${STAGING_DIR_HOST}/${base_prefix}" 
> 
> or
> 
> do_populate_sysroot[sstate-inputdirs] = "${SYSROOT_DESTDIR}"
> do_populate_sysroot[sstate-outputdirs] = "${STAGING_DIR_HOST}"
> 
> but just looking at code I'm having trouble working out whether
> either, both or neither of these would work and in which cases. 
> 
> The cross/crosssdk recipes are a mess as they install into two
> different sysroots. Dexuan is working on some changes to improve that
> so I'm least worried about those two classes and the patch I just
> merged for libgcc is going to help. I'm therefore aiming for this to
> work for the target/native/nativesdk/cross-canadian cases and the
> cross/crosssdk one is secondary and can be messy for now if needed.  
> 
> I feel most comfortable aiming for the latter of my two options
> above, does that work assuming we hack cross/crosssdk to do whatever
> is needed to make them work with it? Can the others then remain
> unaltered?   


${base_prefix} has some kinds of values considerring different recipe type. (we do not discuss cross and crosssdk)

Normal target recipe: base_prefix = ""
Native recipes: base_prefix = "${STAGING_DIR_NATIVE}"
Nativesdk recipes: base_prefix = "${SDKPATHNATIVE}"
Cross-canadian recipes: base_prefix = "${SDKPATHNATIVE}"

For target recipes, the input and output dirs should be:
Input: ${SYSROOT_DESTDIR}
Output: ${STAGING_DIR_HOST}

For native recipes, the input and output dirs should be:
Input: ${SYSROOT_DESTDIR}/${STAGING_DIR_NATIVE}
Output: "${STAGING_DIR_NATIVE}"

For nativesdk recipes, the input and output dirs should be:
Input: ${SYSROOT_DESTDIR}/${SDKPATHNATIVE}
Output: "${STAGING_DIR_HOST}/${SDKPATHNATIVE}

For cross-canadian recipes, the input and output dirs should be:
Input: ${SYSROOT_DESTDIR}/${SDKPATHNATIVE}
Output: "${STAGING_DIR_HOST}/${SDKPATHNATIVE}

It is workable if change to your latter option.
do_populate_sysroot[sstate-inputdirs] = "${SYSROOT_DESTDIR}"
do_populate_sysroot[sstate-outputdirs] = "${STAGING_DIR_HOST}"

In this case we need to specially handle native cases.

> 
> The other minor thing I'm thinking about is adding a definition of:
> 
> bindir_crossscripts = "${bindir}/crossscripts"
> 
> to bitbake.conf (near the top next to bindir_cross) and using that in
> the sysroot functions. 

OK, I will change accordingly.

Thanks,
Dongxiao

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard