[poky] [PATCH 0/6] Added rpm support in meta-toolchain

[Richard Purdie]

Hi Lianhao,

On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 10:51 +0800, Lianhao Lu wrote:
> From: Lianhao Lu <lianhao.lu at intel.com>
> 
> The purpose of this series of patches is to add rpm support in meta-toolchain creation,
> and also to fix bug #227.
> 
> It makes the task populate_sdk in meta/recipes-core/meta/meta-toolchain.bb more generic
> to support installing packages from ipk, rpm, and deb files in creating meta-toolchain 
> tarball, and move the populate_sdk task out of meta-toolchain.bb recipe into a bbclass.
> 
> It added populate_sdk_xxx.bbclass for different package file format.
> 
> The meta-toolchain installing process involes 2 set of packages, one is the host sdk 
> set which contains packages of applications(e.g. cross-canadian compilers, qemu, etc.) and 
> relevant run-time libraries, the other is the target sdk set which contains packages of target
> arch's libraries and header files to create a target rootfs for cross compiling purpose.So
> the patches also modifes and/or adds functions in package_deb.bbclass & package_rpm.bbclass 
> to update the package index and to generate different installing configuration files for the 
> tow different sets.
> 
> It also fixed a bug in cross-canadian.bbclass to enable the package_deb.bbclass generate correct
> deb package files for cross-canadian recipies.

Its great to see this but I think we need to restructure the code a
little more aggressively and create some general functions to complete
this properly.

What I mean is that both rootfs_ipk and populate_sdk_ipk share code,
rootfs_deb and populate_sdk_deb share code and likewise for rpm.

What we need is a generic function where we specify where the target
directory is and a list of packages we want to install along with some
architecture information and it then goes and does it. Those functions
would like in package_xxx.bbclass. We should do similar things well in
one place rather than in two with slightly different implementations.

Do you agree?

Cheers,

Richard