[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/4] package/openobex: disable on Blackfin

[Samuel Martin]

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 09:01:28 +0100, Samuel Martin wrote:
>
>> >> diff --git a/package/openobex/Config.in b/package/openobex/Config.in
>> >> index e611b8d803..4a4dc214ef 100644
>> >> --- a/package/openobex/Config.in
>> >> +++ b/package/openobex/Config.in
>> >> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
>> >>  config BR2_PACKAGE_OPENOBEX
>> >>       bool "openobex"
>> >> +     depends on !BR2_bfin
>> >>       help
>> >>         Free open source implementation of the Object Exchange (OBEX)
>> >>         protocol.
>> >
>> > What about the Config.in comment, and the reverse dependencies of
>> > BR2_PACKAGE_OPENOBEX ?
>>
>> Well, I was not really sure about what to mention... and also wanted
>> to heard Waldemar opinion.
>
> I don't understand what you mean here. If you're adding a new
> dependency to a package, you must:
>
>  - Propagate it to the Config.in comment of that package
>
>  - Propagate it to the reverse dependencies of that package
>
> So I'm not sure how you can be "not really sure about what to mention".
>
> You must add a "depends on !BR2_bfin" in the Config.in comment, and
> then a depends on !BR2_bfin to all reverse dependencies of openobex,
> including their Config.in comments. There is nothing to "mention".
>
> But since Waldemar has submitted a patch to fix the actual problem in
> uClibc, this is all moot :)
>
>> FYI, this commit 53996bee433f09a91b12aa53b2be0f7d22c0acbe seems to fix
>> a similar issue.
>
> We should revert this commit once Waldemar fix is merged, and we have
> rebuilt the toolchains.

That's the plan.

Regards,

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



-- 
Samuel