| Message ID | 1043203342.6813512.1479733854854.JavaMail.zimbra@datacom.ind.br |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi there, On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Carlos Santos <casantos@datacom.ind.br> wrote: >> From: "Maxime Hadjinlian" <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> >> To: buildroot@buildroot.org >> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 1:24:27 PM >> Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen > >> Since e2fsprogs depends on util-linux, it's build after it. It means >> that if you want the fsck wrapper from util-linux (which is better >> maintained and you are sure that it's compatible with systemd) and you >> want e2fsck, it won't work. >> >> Because of the merge of /usr/bin and /bin, we end up deleting the fsck >> from util-linux. >> >> This makes an attempt at fixing the issues. >> >> Signed-off-by: Maxime Hadjinlian <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> >> --- >> I am cleary not satisfied by the way I handled that, I am not even sure >> it works in all cases. I can't spend much more time on this right now, >> so I need advice/help from the community to fix that in a proper/generic >> manner. > What about using something like this, instead? It's indeed better, but you have to keep the bit about the busybox applet due to the merge of /sbin and /usr/sbin > > diff --git a/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in b/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in > index 4db11e1..c0b48e1 100644 > --- a/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in > +++ b/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in > @@ -60,8 +60,12 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FILEFRAG > > config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FSCK > bool "fsck" > + depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK > default y > > +comment "the fsck from util-linux has preference over this one" > + depends on BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK > + > config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FUSE2FS > bool "fuse2fs" > depends on !BR2_STATIC_LIBS # libfuse > > > Carlos Santos (Casantos) > DATACOM, P&D >
> From: "Maxime Hadjinlian" <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> > To: "Carlos Santos" <casantos@datacom.ind.br> > Cc: "buildroot" <buildroot@buildroot.org> > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 12:24:07 PM > Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen > Hi there, > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Carlos Santos <casantos@datacom.ind.br> wrote: >>> From: "Maxime Hadjinlian" <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> >>> To: buildroot@buildroot.org >>> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 1:24:27 PM >>> Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen >> >>> Since e2fsprogs depends on util-linux, it's build after it. It means >>> that if you want the fsck wrapper from util-linux (which is better >>> maintained and you are sure that it's compatible with systemd) and you >>> want e2fsck, it won't work. >>> >>> Because of the merge of /usr/bin and /bin, we end up deleting the fsck >>> from util-linux. >>> >>> This makes an attempt at fixing the issues. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Hadjinlian <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> I am cleary not satisfied by the way I handled that, I am not even sure >>> it works in all cases. I can't spend much more time on this right now, >>> so I need advice/help from the community to fix that in a proper/generic >>> manner. >> What about using something like this, instead? > It's indeed better, but you have to keep the bit about the busybox > applet due to the merge of /sbin and /usr/sbin Right. Looks like combining the changes in Config.in and e2fsprogs.mk is the best approach. >> >> diff --git a/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in b/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in >> index 4db11e1..c0b48e1 100644 >> --- a/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in >> +++ b/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in >> @@ -60,8 +60,12 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FILEFRAG >> >> config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FSCK >> bool "fsck" >> + depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK >> default y >> >> +comment "the fsck from util-linux has preference over this one" >> + depends on BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK >> + >> config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FUSE2FS >> bool "fuse2fs" >> depends on !BR2_STATIC_LIBS # libfuse >> >> >> Carlos Santos (Casantos) >> DATACOM, P&D
Coming back to this old issue (trigger by the patchwork cleanup initiated by Thomas) On 21-11-16 16:03, Carlos Santos wrote: >> From: "Maxime Hadjinlian" <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> >> To: "Carlos Santos" <casantos@datacom.ind.br> >> Cc: "buildroot" <buildroot@buildroot.org> >> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 12:24:07 PM >> Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen > >> Hi there, >> >> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Carlos Santos <casantos@datacom.ind.br> wrote: >>>> From: "Maxime Hadjinlian" <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> >>>> To: buildroot@buildroot.org >>>> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 1:24:27 PM >>>> Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen >>> >>>> Since e2fsprogs depends on util-linux, it's build after it. It means >>>> that if you want the fsck wrapper from util-linux (which is better >>>> maintained and you are sure that it's compatible with systemd) and you >>>> want e2fsck, it won't work. >>>> >>>> Because of the merge of /usr/bin and /bin, we end up deleting the fsck >>>> from util-linux. First of all, I think we should change set --prefix=/ for e2fsprogs. That way, they are installed in the same location as where busybox and util-linux put them. That removes the need for the E2FSPROGS_REMOVE_BUSYBOX_APPLETS hack. But then we have the problem that e2fsprogs.mk currently removes all the programs that it doesn't install. A simple solution would be to remove all the options from Config.in so that the removals are not needed anymore. Of course, that will do exactly the opposite of what you want to achieve here, since e2fsprogs will override everything from util-linux... But for that, there happens to be a simple solution: --disable-fsck doesn't build and install fsck (without affecting e2fsck). (Of course, I didn't actually test this, just looked at configure.ac and Makefile.in.) >>>> >>>> This makes an attempt at fixing the issues. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Hadjinlian <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> >>>> --- >>>> I am cleary not satisfied by the way I handled that, I am not even sure >>>> it works in all cases. I can't spend much more time on this right now, >>>> so I need advice/help from the community to fix that in a proper/generic >>>> manner. >>> What about using something like this, instead? >> It's indeed better, but you have to keep the bit about the busybox >> applet due to the merge of /sbin and /usr/sbin > > Right. Looks like combining the changes in Config.in and e2fsprogs.mk is the best approach. > >>> >>> diff --git a/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in b/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in >>> index 4db11e1..c0b48e1 100644 >>> --- a/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in >>> +++ b/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in >>> @@ -60,8 +60,12 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FILEFRAG >>> >>> config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FSCK >>> bool "fsck" >>> + depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK This looks like a good idea. >>> default y >>> >>> +comment "the fsck from util-linux has preference over this one" >>> + depends on BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK >>> + I don't think the comment is needed. Regards, Arnout >>> config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FUSE2FS >>> bool "fuse2fs" >>> depends on !BR2_STATIC_LIBS # libfuse >>> >>> >>> Carlos Santos (Casantos) >>> DATACOM, P&D > _______________________________________________ > buildroot mailing list > buildroot@busybox.net > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot >
On 27-03-17 23:29, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > Coming back to this old issue (trigger by the patchwork cleanup initiated by > Thomas) > > On 21-11-16 16:03, Carlos Santos wrote: >>> From: "Maxime Hadjinlian" <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> >>> To: "Carlos Santos" <casantos@datacom.ind.br> >>> Cc: "buildroot" <buildroot@buildroot.org> >>> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 12:24:07 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen >> >>> Hi there, >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Carlos Santos <casantos@datacom.ind.br> wrote: >>>>> From: "Maxime Hadjinlian" <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> >>>>> To: buildroot@buildroot.org >>>>> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 1:24:27 PM >>>>> Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] e2fsprogs: keep util-linux's fsck if chosen >>>> >>>>> Since e2fsprogs depends on util-linux, it's build after it. It means >>>>> that if you want the fsck wrapper from util-linux (which is better >>>>> maintained and you are sure that it's compatible with systemd) and you >>>>> want e2fsck, it won't work. >>>>> >>>>> Because of the merge of /usr/bin and /bin, we end up deleting the fsck >>>>> from util-linux. > > First of all, I think we should change set --prefix=/ for e2fsprogs. That way, > they are installed in the same location as where busybox and util-linux put > them. That removes the need for the E2FSPROGS_REMOVE_BUSYBOX_APPLETS hack. > > But then we have the problem that e2fsprogs.mk currently removes all the > programs that it doesn't install. A simple solution would be to remove all the > options from Config.in so that the removals are not needed anymore. Note that this would also fix bug 9436. > > Of course, that will do exactly the opposite of what you want to achieve here, > since e2fsprogs will override everything from util-linux... But for that, there > happens to be a simple solution: --disable-fsck doesn't build and install fsck > (without affecting e2fsck). (Of course, I didn't actually test this, just looked > at configure.ac and Makefile.in.) > >>>>> >>>>> This makes an attempt at fixing the issues. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Hadjinlian <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> I am cleary not satisfied by the way I handled that, I am not even sure >>>>> it works in all cases. I can't spend much more time on this right now, >>>>> so I need advice/help from the community to fix that in a proper/generic >>>>> manner. >>>> What about using something like this, instead? >>> It's indeed better, but you have to keep the bit about the busybox >>> applet due to the merge of /sbin and /usr/sbin >> >> Right. Looks like combining the changes in Config.in and e2fsprogs.mk is the best approach. >> >>>> >>>> diff --git a/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in b/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in >>>> index 4db11e1..c0b48e1 100644 >>>> --- a/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in >>>> +++ b/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in >>>> @@ -60,8 +60,12 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FILEFRAG >>>> >>>> config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FSCK >>>> bool "fsck" >>>> + depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK > > This looks like a good idea. Since we agree that the Config.in change is needed as well, I've marked this patch as Changes Requested. Regards, Arnout > >>>> default y >>>> >>>> +comment "the fsck from util-linux has preference over this one" >>>> + depends on BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK >>>> + > > I don't think the comment is needed. > > Regards, > Arnout > >>>> config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FUSE2FS >>>> bool "fuse2fs" >>>> depends on !BR2_STATIC_LIBS # libfuse >>>> >>>> >>>> Carlos Santos (Casantos) >>>> DATACOM, P&D >> _______________________________________________ >> buildroot mailing list >> buildroot@busybox.net >> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot >> >
diff --git a/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in b/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in index 4db11e1..c0b48e1 100644 --- a/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in +++ b/package/e2fsprogs/Config.in @@ -60,8 +60,12 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FILEFRAG config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FSCK bool "fsck" + depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK default y +comment "the fsck from util-linux has preference over this one" + depends on BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_FSCK + config BR2_PACKAGE_E2FSPROGS_FUSE2FS bool "fuse2fs" depends on !BR2_STATIC_LIBS # libfuse