[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH] configure: Check bzip2 is available

From: Thomas Huth
Subject: Re: [PATCH] configure: Check bzip2 is available
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:57:31 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.0

On 08/11/2019 12.54, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 11/8/19 12:01 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
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).

I am just reading this and already sent a v2.

I can amend these details. Thomas, what distro release were you using?

I encountered this problem with a freshly installed Fedora 31.


reply via email to

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