| Message ID | 1464096676-41655-1-git-send-email-ckhardin@exablox.com |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Headers | show |
Hello, On Tue, 24 May 2016 06:31:16 -0700, Charles Hardin wrote: > The configure script hard codes "/sbin" for installation which > installs the XFS tools in a different location then the e2fsprogs. > > This is just a cosmetic patch so all the tools end up in "/usr/sbin" > for consistency. > > Signed-off-by: Charles Hardin <ckhardin@exablox.com> What is the motivation for this change? If the upstream xfsprogs developers think it should be installed in /sbin, why should we change it? In any case, the patch itself needs a description + your Signed-off-by line. Also, it should be submitted to the upstream xfsprogs developers to see if they might accept it. Otherwise I think we would prefer to keep the existing behavior. Thanks! Thomas
Hello, On Wed, 25 May 2016 23:11:10 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > On Tue, 24 May 2016 06:31:16 -0700, Charles Hardin wrote: > > The configure script hard codes "/sbin" for installation which > > installs the XFS tools in a different location then the e2fsprogs. > > > > This is just a cosmetic patch so all the tools end up in "/usr/sbin" > > for consistency. > > > > Signed-off-by: Charles Hardin <ckhardin@exablox.com> > > What is the motivation for this change? If the upstream xfsprogs > developers think it should be installed in /sbin, why should we change > it? > > In any case, the patch itself needs a description + your Signed-off-by > line. Also, it should be submitted to the upstream xfsprogs developers > to see if they might accept it. Otherwise I think we would prefer to > keep the existing behavior. Since there was no reply to my questions, I've marked this patch as "Rejected" in our patch tracking system. Do not hesitate to resend an updated version that takes into account the comments and that provides a more detailed justification. Thanks for your contribution! Thomas
Sorry, there was a better submission sent which is basically make xfsprogs match the e2fsprogs which go in /usr/sbin. I just found that highly annoying not see mkfs.ext in the same directory. Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:09 PM, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote: > > Hello, > >> On Wed, 25 May 2016 23:11:10 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 24 May 2016 06:31:16 -0700, Charles Hardin wrote: >>> The configure script hard codes "/sbin" for installation which >>> installs the XFS tools in a different location then the e2fsprogs. >>> >>> This is just a cosmetic patch so all the tools end up in "/usr/sbin" >>> for consistency. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Charles Hardin <ckhardin@exablox.com> >> >> What is the motivation for this change? If the upstream xfsprogs >> developers think it should be installed in /sbin, why should we change >> it? >> >> In any case, the patch itself needs a description + your Signed-off-by >> line. Also, it should be submitted to the upstream xfsprogs developers >> to see if they might accept it. Otherwise I think we would prefer to >> keep the existing behavior. > > Since there was no reply to my questions, I've marked this patch as > "Rejected" in our patch tracking system. Do not hesitate to resend an > updated version that takes into account the comments and that provides > a more detailed justification. > > Thanks for your contribution! > > Thomas > -- > Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons > Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering > http://free-electrons.com
diff --git a/package/xfsprogs/0004-xfsprogs-configure-exec-prefix.patch b/package/xfsprogs/0004-xfsprogs-configure-exec-prefix.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f8c1aeb --- /dev/null +++ b/package/xfsprogs/0004-xfsprogs-configure-exec-prefix.patch @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +diff -Naur xfsprogs-3.1.11.orig/configure xfsprogs-3.1.11/configure +--- xfsprogs-3.1.11.orig/configure 2016-01-03 19:27:44.603418507 +0000 ++++ xfsprogs-3.1.11/configure 2016-01-03 19:26:16.029757743 +0000 +@@ -10036,8 +10036,8 @@ + # case. If the user choses a different prefix assume he just wants + # a local install for testing and not a system install. + # +-case $exec_prefix:$prefix in +-NONE:NONE | NONE:/usr | /usr:*) ++case $cross_compiling:$exec_prefix:$prefix in ++no:NONE:NONE | no:NONE:/usr | no:/usr:*) + root_sbindir='/sbin' + root_libdir="/${base_libdir}" + ;; +diff -Naur xfsprogs-3.1.11.orig/configure.ac xfsprogs-3.1.11/configure.ac +--- xfsprogs-3.1.11.orig/configure.ac 2016-01-03 19:28:02.258949863 +0000 ++++ xfsprogs-3.1.11/configure.ac 2016-01-03 19:25:45.918554215 +0000 +@@ -64,8 +64,8 @@ + # case. If the user choses a different prefix assume he just wants + # a local install for testing and not a system install. + # +-case $exec_prefix:$prefix in +-NONE:NONE | NONE:/usr | /usr:*) ++case $cross_compiling:$exec_prefix:$prefix in ++no:NONE:NONE | no:NONE:/usr | no:/usr:*) + root_sbindir='/sbin' + root_libdir="/${base_libdir}" + ;;
The configure script hard codes "/sbin" for installation which installs the XFS tools in a different location then the e2fsprogs. This is just a cosmetic patch so all the tools end up in "/usr/sbin" for consistency. Signed-off-by: Charles Hardin <ckhardin@exablox.com> --- .../0004-xfsprogs-configure-exec-prefix.patch | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) create mode 100644 package/xfsprogs/0004-xfsprogs-configure-exec-prefix.patch