[Buildroot] [PATCH v2 18/37] docs/manual: add check-package to "Tips and tricks"

[Ricardo Martincoski]

Hello,

Thank you for your review.

On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 04:16 AM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:

> On Sun,  1 Apr 2018 02:08:31 -0300, Ricardo Martincoski wrote:
>> +This script can be used for packages and also for package-like files:
>> +boot, fs, toolchain, ... ; but it does not check package infra types.
> 
> I'm not sure to understand what you mean by "does not check package
> infra types". Do you mean that the code in package/pkg-*.mk is not
> checked ? Or that it doesn't check the $(eval $(autotools-package))
> line at the end of every package ?

I meant package/pkg-*.mk and similar files.
"and similar" because we have such files in bool/, fs/ and toolchain/ and the
user can also have such files inside a br2-external.

What I am trying to state is that the script does not validate the language of
any file in the tree or even any Makefile, it only checks for common mistakes in
the standardized naming and style we use for variables declared in package files
to be picked up by the package infra.

Maybe one of these?

"but it does not check package infra files."
"but it does not check +package/pkg-*.mk+."
"but it does not check +package/pkg-*.mk+ and similar files."
"but it does not check files that define a package infra."
"but it does not check files that define a package infra and not a
package itself."
"but it does not understand package infra files."
"but it does not understand +package/pkg-*.mk+."
"but it does not understand +package/pkg-*.mk+ and similar files."
"but it does not understand files that define a package infra."
"but it does not understand files that define a package infra and not a
package itself."

I have no preference.

>> +The tool can also be used for proprietary packages in a br2-external:
> 
> I would say "external packages" or just "packages", because packages in
> a br2-external are not necessarily proprietary.

You are right.
Just "packages" is more accurate.

>> +++ b/docs/manual/adding-packages.txt
>> @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ tuning their configuration.
>>  When you add a new package, be sure to test it in various conditions;
>>  see xref:testing-package[]
>>  
>> +Also check the new package for coding style; see xref:check-package[]
> 
> Final dot ?

OK. Nit: should we also add a final dot to the paragraph above?

Or even join the two:

"
When you add a new package, be sure to test it in various conditions
(see xref:testing-package[]) and also check it for coding style
(see xref:check-package[]).
"

I kept test-pkg as first because it is more important to run this one.

But we could also rephrase to the order they are supposed to be used:

"
While you add a new package, check it for coding style; see
xref:check-package[].

Before you submit the new package, be sure to test it in various
conditions; see xref:testing-package[].
"

I have no preference.

Regards,
Ricardo