[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#42734] Export android-platform-system-core
From: |
Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli |
Subject: |
[bug#42734] Export android-platform-system-core |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Aug 2020 05:19:49 +0200 |
On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 07:33:03 -0400
Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu> wrote:
> Unfortunately, android-platform-core should first be fixed to accept
> a hash as an argument, otherwise any other version will fail. Don't
> know why we haven't done that beforeā¦
I don't understand what the hash would be here, nor the consequences
you describe. Do you have some pointers on the documentation or source
code that I should read to better understand that?
By the way I find it a bit strange to refer to have to manually extract
android-platform-system-core to be able to refer its include path.
Beside the native-input, this results in the following code:
> #:make-flags (list (string-append "CFLAGS= "
> "-I core/include "
> [...]))
>
> [...]
>
> #:phases
> (modify-phases %standard-phases
> (add-after 'unpack 'unpack-core
> (lambda* (#:key inputs #:allow-other-keys)
> (mkdir-p "core")
> (with-directory-excursion "core"
> (invoke "tar" "axf" (assoc-ref inputs "android-core")
> "--strip-components=1"))
> #t))
> [...])
Instead of just that:
> #:make-flags (list (string-append "CFLAGS= "
> "-I " (assoc-ref %build-inputs "android-core")
> "/include "))
> [...]))
Another potential improvement would be to remove the
android-platform-version argument completely and set version to it in
android.mk like that:
> (define-public (android-platform-system-core
> [...]
> (version (android-platform-version))
> [...]
That would make the native-input look like that:
> (native-inputs
> `(
> ("android-core" ,android-platform-system-core)))
And if we need the version 9.0.0_r3 we could define a new package:
> (define-public android-platform-system-core-9
> (package
> (inherit android-platform-system-core)
> (version "9.0.0_r3"))))
and use it:
> (native-inputs
> `(
> ("android-core" ,android-platform-system-core-9)))
Are both proposal a good idea? Or does it have any downsides that I
didn't think of?
Denis.
pgpgh6r5DmlH2.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature