Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu> 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.