Dne 6.6.2017 v 20:06 Andreas Färber napsal(a):
Hi Michal,
Am 06.06.2017 um 10:33 schrieb Michal Marek:
Anyway, we drifted away from the topic a bit. I posted the RFC to ask if it is an acceptable trade off to have a shared mkspec-dtb script at the cost of occasionally having empty dtb-* packages.
Could you give us a verbose explanation of what the RFC is doing?
It generates the %files sections for subpackages during rpm build, as opposed to the mkspec-dtb script generating them. So the mkspec-dtb can live in the packaging branch and contain the union of all the dtb subpackage definitions from master, linux-next, vanilla, SLE15 and the spec file will produce empty subpackages if the kernel does not have a given dts file.
For arm64 I would be fine with an auto-generated list of sub-packages: Every vendor directory arch/arm64/boot/dts/foo/ should get its own dtb-foo subpackage. That requires access to an expanded source tree, which I miss in mkspec-dtb. Lua script in the .spec might be a solution?
This sounds interesting, but the RFC patch is not doing this. And I'm afraid not even lua will help, because the spec file is parsed and all macros evaluated before any of the build scriptlets is executed. We would have to unpack the linux tarball and apply all patches inside the lua script. Michal -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org