Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] tools: make flask utils build unconditional

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2016-01-04 at 14:26 +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 08:14:23AM -0600, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > On 1/4/16 6:28 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:46:43PM -0600, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > > > The flask utilities only have dependencies on libxc so there's no
> > > > downside to always building it. Distros and projects based on Xen
> > > > can
> > > > put these utilities into a different package and not install them
> > > > for
> > > > everyone. Prior to this change FLASK_ENABLE needs to be a top level
> > > > variable however after this change FLASK_ENABLE only affects xen/.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Doug Goldstein <cardoe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > While it is true about the dependency, enabling flask build
> > > unconditionally in toolstack will leave a xenpolicy-$VERSION
> > > installed
> > > in /boot. Not sure how that will be useful to Xen without flask
> > > support.
> > > 
> > > It is true that packager can pick that into separate package, but for
> > > people installing from source, this might be a bit confusing.
> > > 
> > > Wei.
> > 
> > Wei,
> > 
> > This is actually not correct. The installation of that file is
> > controlled by the ./configure script with --enable-xsmpolicy and
> > --disable-xsmpolicy.
> > 
> > This patch just makes the utilities be unconditionally built.
> > 
> 
> You're right. I misread. Sorry for the noise.
> 
> Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>

I went to apply this but I seem to now have an extra policy file installed
after my test build:
--- ../FILE_LIST.BASE.staging.x86_64ÂÂÂÂ2015-12-16 09:45:00.000000000 +0000
+++ ../FILE_LIST.staging.x86_64 2016-01-05 14:27:58.000000000 +0000
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
Âdist/install/boot/xen-4.7-unstable.gz
Âdist/install/boot/xen-4.gz
Âdist/install/boot/xen.gz
+dist/install/boot/xenpolicy-4.7-unstable
Âdist/install/etc
Âdist/install/etc/bash_completion.d
Âdist/install/etc/bash_completion.d/xl.sh

which on the basis of this discussion I wasn't expecting. I didn't see this
new file on i686 or ARM*.

My baseline is from the last time I committed, which would be last year, so
maybe something other than my current batch of patches has caused this.

I'm going to drop this one for now and (hopefully) get the rest of the
batch squared away. Afterwards I'll take another look (with a new baseline
filelist), but if someone can explain it in the meantime that would be
super.

My pre-commit script doesn't mention xsm at all, i.e. nothing passed to
./configure nor written to .config or xen/.config.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel