[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] configure: Check bzip2 is available

From: Laszlo Ersek
Subject: Re: [PATCH] configure: Check bzip2 is available
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:01:16 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1

On 11/08/19 11:28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> The bzip2 tool is not included in default installations.
> On freshly installed systems, ./configure succeeds but 'make'
> might fail later:
>     BUNZIP2 pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd.bz2
>   /bin/sh: bzip2: command not found
>   make: *** [Makefile:305: pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd] Error 127
>   make: *** Deleting file 'pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd'
>   make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> Add a check in ./configure to warn the user if bzip2 is missing.

We've come full circle. Let me explain:

> Fixes: 536d2173b2b

So this makes me kinda grumpy. If you look at the v3 posting of the patch that 
would later become commit 536d2173b2b:


you see the following note in the changelog:

    - compress FD files with bzip2 rather than xz, so that decompression at
      "make install" time succeed on older build OSes too [Peter]

So I couldn't use xz because that was "too new" for some build OSes, but now we 
also can't take bzip2 for granted because that's "too old" for some other build 
OSes? This is ridiculous.

To be clear, my disagreement is only with the "Fixes" tag. For me, "Fixes" 
stands for something that, in retrospect, can be proven to have been a bug at 
the time the code was *originally* committed. But, at the time, taking "bzip2" 
for granted was *not* a bug. The conditions / circumstances have changed more 
recently, and the assumption about bzip2 has been invalidated *after* adding a 
dependency on bzip2.

Nonetheless, thank you for adapting the code to the potential absence of bzip2. 
Can you perhaps go in some details in the commit message, near "not included in 
default installations" and "freshly installed systems"? If we can, we should 
identify the exact distro release where this problem has been encountered (and 
I wouldn't mind a link to the BZ or ticket under which people agreed to remove 
bzip2 from the default package set).

Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden>


> Reported-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden>
> ---
>  configure | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> diff --git a/configure b/configure
> index efe165edf9..9957e913e8 100755
> --- a/configure
> +++ b/configure
> @@ -1851,6 +1851,13 @@ python_version=$($python -c 'import sys; 
> print("%d.%d.%d" % (sys.version_info[0]
>  # Suppress writing compiled files
>  python="$python -B"
> +# Some firmware binaries are compressed with bzip2
> +if has bzip2; then
> +  :
> +else
> +  error_exit "bzip2 program not found. Please install it"
> +fi
> +
>  # Check that the C compiler works. Doing this here before testing
>  # the host CPU ensures that we had a valid CC to autodetect the
>  # $cpu var (and we should bail right here if that's not the case).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]