[Buildroot] [PATCH 4 of 6 v2] uclibc: only add targets if uclibc is enabled

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Thomas De Schampheleire,

On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 21:58:05 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:

> In analogy of linux.mk, only enable its targets (in particular the kconfig
> targets (menuconfig, update-config, ...) when the uclibc package is actually
> enabled.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas De Schampheleire <thomas.de.schampheleire at gmail.com>
> 
> ---
> v2: rebase after making kconfig-package a full infra
> 
> Note: now that kconfig-package is a full package infra (inheriting from
> generic-package) this may seem a bit odd, as other packages do not do this.
> Nevertheless, it does not hurt and will slightly improve the parsing of the
> Makefiles when the package is not selected.
> 
>  package/uclibc/uclibc.mk |  2 ++
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff -r 083076145a2b -r 540167f28c2d package/uclibc/uclibc.mk
> --- a/package/uclibc/uclibc.mk	Tue Jul 22 20:35:36 2014 +0200
> +++ b/package/uclibc/uclibc.mk	Wed Jul 23 20:12:32 2014 +0200
> @@ -539,7 +539,9 @@
>  	$(UCLIBC_INSTALL_UTILS_STAGING)
>  endef
>  
> +ifeq ($(BR2_TOOLCHAIN_BUILDROOT_UCLIBC),y)
>  $(eval $(kconfig-package))
> +endif

I actually don't like this that much, because I like a lot the fact
that I can do "make <foo>-source" "make <foo>-extract", "make
<foo>-patch" or even "make <foo>" (though this last case, for the
specific situation of uClibc doesn't seem really possible).

Though it's true it can be considered a bit strange to allow "make
<foo>-patch" but not "make <foo>-menuconfig".

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com