Re: [PATCH] Add adb

[Julien Lepiller]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 18:28:56 +0100
Marius Bakke <address@hidden> wrote:

> Julien Lepiller <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I wanted to use adb, so here is a patch to have it in the distro. It
> > works when ran as root, or if you add some udev rules to your os
> > configuration.
> >
> > An issue I can see with this package is that it is only a part of
> > the upstream repository, which in turn is only a part of a bigger
> > build system. Normally, you would download multiple repos and build
> > them all together to get an android image, and some android tools
> > (including adb). I don't think we want to build a full android
> > image, so I wrote a recipe for adb only.
> >
> > I took the recipe from archlinux, as well as the patch
> > (android-tools package:
> > https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk?h=packages/android-tools,
> > see build.sh and fix-build.patch). They use clang, but our version
> > isn't able to build c++ source files (it cannot find includes such
> > as <string> or <iostream>), so I fixed the source to remove clang
> > dialect in adb/adb_client.h so we can build the files using gcc.
> >
> > Archlinux also builds fastboot and mkbootimg. Should I build them
> > along with adb, or in a separate packages?
> 
> Wow, go build system and adb in a single weekend, is it Christmas
> already :)
> 
> I happen to have a work-in-progress adb expression as well, but
> creating liblog and libbase as standalone packages. Also creating
> Makefiles (based on the Debian approach) instead of calling g++
> directly.
> 
> Looking at the attached patch here, I think what's missing in my build
> is the string.h inclusions. We should join efforts and get this in
> ASAP!
> 
> Attaching my patch here. I think having liblog and libbase as separate
> expressions is cleaner, but creating Makefiles may be unnecessary.
> WDYT?
> 
> I also wonder if it's worth adding a snippet to each package source,
> so that the source derivations only contain the files relevant to each
> respective package for licensing reasons.
> 

You're right, we should probably have separate libbase and liblog
packages, so we should work from your patch. Using a Makefile is also
probably cleaner than calling system*.

android-platform-build appears to be unused. I think
android-platform-system-core should not depend on version, because it
contains a sha256 value that already restricts it to a specific version.

Maybe the makefiles could be improved to allow parallel build. Although
the source is not so big that it actually matters.

I don't understand the purpose of libbase-use-own-logging.patch.

Shouldn't liblog be a propagated input of libbase?