| Message ID | 20240417043654.60662-1-prathampatel@thefossguy.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Enable building of the devel RPM package from Kbuild | expand |
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:37:32AM +0000, Pratham Patel wrote: > This addresses a minor nit where I want a `-devel` RPM package to be > built when I build a binary RPM package with either `binrpm-pkg` > or `rpm-pkg` target(s). > > Pratham Patel (2): > kbuild: allow toggling the `with_devel` RPM macro > docs: kbuild: document KBUILD_RPM_WITH_DEVEL > > Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.rst | 6 ++++++ > scripts/Makefile.package | 5 ++++- > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > -- > 2.42.0 > Hmmm, when I execute $ make -skj"$(nproc)" ARCH=x86_64 O=build mrproper defconfig binrpm-pkg I end up with $ ls -1 build/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64 kernel-6.9.0_rc4_00031_g96fca68c4fbf-1.x86_64.rpm kernel-devel-6.9.0_rc4_00031_g96fca68c4fbf-1.x86_64.rpm kernel-headers-6.9.0_rc4_00031_g96fca68c4fbf-1.x86_64.rpm so it seems like this is already happening? Cheers, Nathan
On Wed Apr 17, 2024 at 8:18 PM IST, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:37:32AM +0000, Pratham Patel wrote: > > This addresses a minor nit where I want a `-devel` RPM package to be > > built when I build a binary RPM package with either `binrpm-pkg` > > or `rpm-pkg` target(s). > > > > Pratham Patel (2): > > kbuild: allow toggling the `with_devel` RPM macro > > docs: kbuild: document KBUILD_RPM_WITH_DEVEL > > > > Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.rst | 6 ++++++ > > scripts/Makefile.package | 5 ++++- > > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > -- > > 2.42.0 > > > > Hmmm, when I execute > > $ make -skj"$(nproc)" ARCH=x86_64 O=build mrproper defconfig binrpm-pkg > > I end up with > > $ ls -1 build/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64 > kernel-6.9.0_rc4_00031_g96fca68c4fbf-1.x86_64.rpm > kernel-devel-6.9.0_rc4_00031_g96fca68c4fbf-1.x86_64.rpm > kernel-headers-6.9.0_rc4_00031_g96fca68c4fbf-1.x86_64.rpm > > so it seems like this is already happening? > > Cheers, > Nathan Ah sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say the following: "This addresses a minor nit where I **don't** want a `-devel` RPM package to be built when I build a binary RPM package with either `binrpm-pkg` or `rpm-pkg` target(s)." That is because on ARM systems where I just need to quickly test the upstream defconfig, I don't really need the `-devel` package. Also, I see that in a hurry, I did the opposite of what I wanted in the patches. This went unnoticed since I had KBUILD_RPM_WITH_DEVEL=0 for me during testing. Sorry about that! I'll send a v2 fixing this stupid mistake. -- Pratham Patel
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 03:08:57PM +0000, Pratham Patel wrote: > On Wed Apr 17, 2024 at 8:18 PM IST, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:37:32AM +0000, Pratham Patel wrote: > > > This addresses a minor nit where I want a `-devel` RPM package to be > > > built when I build a binary RPM package with either `binrpm-pkg` > > > or `rpm-pkg` target(s). > > > > > > Pratham Patel (2): > > > kbuild: allow toggling the `with_devel` RPM macro > > > docs: kbuild: document KBUILD_RPM_WITH_DEVEL > > > > > > Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.rst | 6 ++++++ > > > scripts/Makefile.package | 5 ++++- > > > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > -- > > > 2.42.0 > > > > > > > Hmmm, when I execute > > > > $ make -skj"$(nproc)" ARCH=x86_64 O=build mrproper defconfig binrpm-pkg > > > > I end up with > > > > $ ls -1 build/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64 > > kernel-6.9.0_rc4_00031_g96fca68c4fbf-1.x86_64.rpm > > kernel-devel-6.9.0_rc4_00031_g96fca68c4fbf-1.x86_64.rpm > > kernel-headers-6.9.0_rc4_00031_g96fca68c4fbf-1.x86_64.rpm > > > > so it seems like this is already happening? > > > > Cheers, > > Nathan > > Ah sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say the following: > "This addresses a minor nit where I **don't** want a `-devel` RPM > package to be built when I build a binary RPM package with either > `binrpm-pkg` or `rpm-pkg` target(s)." > > That is because on ARM systems where I just need to quickly test the > upstream defconfig, I don't really need the `-devel` package. > > Also, I see that in a hurry, I did the opposite of what I wanted in the > patches. This went unnoticed since I had KBUILD_RPM_WITH_DEVEL=0 for me > during testing. Sorry about that! > > I'll send a v2 fixing this stupid mistake. Ah, understood! I am not sure you actually need a v2 though because I think you can already accomplish what you are looking for by adding RPMOPTS='--without devel' to your make command, at least that works for me. Commit 2a291fc315b6 ("kbuild: rpm-pkg: introduce %{with_devel} switch to select devel package") introduced this. Cheers, Nathan
On Wed Apr 17, 2024 at 9:17 PM IST, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 03:08:57PM +0000, Pratham Patel wrote: > > On Wed Apr 17, 2024 at 8:18 PM IST, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:37:32AM +0000, Pratham Patel wrote: > > > > This addresses a minor nit where I want a `-devel` RPM package to be > > > > built when I build a binary RPM package with either `binrpm-pkg` > > > > or `rpm-pkg` target(s). > > > > > > > > Pratham Patel (2): > > > > kbuild: allow toggling the `with_devel` RPM macro > > > > docs: kbuild: document KBUILD_RPM_WITH_DEVEL > > > > > > > > Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.rst | 6 ++++++ > > > > scripts/Makefile.package | 5 ++++- > > > > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 2.42.0 > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm, when I execute > > > > > > $ make -skj"$(nproc)" ARCH=x86_64 O=build mrproper defconfig binrpm-pkg > > > > > > I end up with > > > > > > $ ls -1 build/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64 > > > kernel-6.9.0_rc4_00031_g96fca68c4fbf-1.x86_64.rpm > > > kernel-devel-6.9.0_rc4_00031_g96fca68c4fbf-1.x86_64.rpm > > > kernel-headers-6.9.0_rc4_00031_g96fca68c4fbf-1.x86_64.rpm > > > > > > so it seems like this is already happening? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Nathan > > > > Ah sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say the following: > > "This addresses a minor nit where I **don't** want a `-devel` RPM > > package to be built when I build a binary RPM package with either > > `binrpm-pkg` or `rpm-pkg` target(s)." > > > > That is because on ARM systems where I just need to quickly test the > > upstream defconfig, I don't really need the `-devel` package. > > > > Also, I see that in a hurry, I did the opposite of what I wanted in the > > patches. This went unnoticed since I had KBUILD_RPM_WITH_DEVEL=0 for me > > during testing. Sorry about that! > > > > I'll send a v2 fixing this stupid mistake. > > Ah, understood! I am not sure you actually need a v2 though because I > think you can already accomplish what you are looking for by adding > > RPMOPTS='--without devel' > > to your make command, at least that works for me. Commit 2a291fc315b6 > ("kbuild: rpm-pkg: introduce %{with_devel} switch to select devel > package") introduced this. > > Cheers, > Nathan Oh, didn't know that, thank you. :) -- Pratham Patel
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 12:51 AM Pratham Patel <prathampatel@thefossguy.com> wrote: > > On Wed Apr 17, 2024 at 9:17 PM IST, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 03:08:57PM +0000, Pratham Patel wrote: > > > On Wed Apr 17, 2024 at 8:18 PM IST, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:37:32AM +0000, Pratham Patel wrote: > > > > > This addresses a minor nit where I want a `-devel` RPM package to be > > > > > built when I build a binary RPM package with either `binrpm-pkg` > > > > > or `rpm-pkg` target(s). > > > > > > > > > > Pratham Patel (2): > > > > > kbuild: allow toggling the `with_devel` RPM macro > > > > > docs: kbuild: document KBUILD_RPM_WITH_DEVEL > > > > > > > > > > Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.rst | 6 ++++++ > > > > > scripts/Makefile.package | 5 ++++- > > > > > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.42.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm, when I execute > > > > > > > > $ make -skj"$(nproc)" ARCH=x86_64 O=build mrproper defconfig binrpm-pkg > > > > > > > > I end up with > > > > > > > > $ ls -1 build/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64 > > > > kernel-6.9.0_rc4_00031_g96fca68c4fbf-1.x86_64.rpm > > > > kernel-devel-6.9.0_rc4_00031_g96fca68c4fbf-1.x86_64.rpm > > > > kernel-headers-6.9.0_rc4_00031_g96fca68c4fbf-1.x86_64.rpm > > > > > > > > so it seems like this is already happening? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Nathan > > > > > > Ah sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say the following: > > > "This addresses a minor nit where I **don't** want a `-devel` RPM > > > package to be built when I build a binary RPM package with either > > > `binrpm-pkg` or `rpm-pkg` target(s)." > > > > > > That is because on ARM systems where I just need to quickly test the > > > upstream defconfig, I don't really need the `-devel` package. > > > > > > Also, I see that in a hurry, I did the opposite of what I wanted in the > > > patches. This went unnoticed since I had KBUILD_RPM_WITH_DEVEL=0 for me > > > during testing. Sorry about that! > > > > > > I'll send a v2 fixing this stupid mistake. > > > > Ah, understood! I am not sure you actually need a v2 though because I > > think you can already accomplish what you are looking for by adding > > > > RPMOPTS='--without devel' > > > > to your make command, at least that works for me. Commit 2a291fc315b6 > > ("kbuild: rpm-pkg: introduce %{with_devel} switch to select devel > > package") introduced this. > > > > Cheers, > > Nathan > > Oh, didn't know that, thank you. :) > > -- Pratham Patel > As explained in the commit description of a55d4aee76ca72e198a657cb471d2a3b37983072