[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] omniorb: add COS Naming Service
mlweber1 at rockwellcollins.com
Wed Nov 13 14:11:52 UTC 2013
Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin at gmail.com> wrote on 11/13/2013
> From: Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin at gmail.com>
> To: Peter Korsgaard <jacmet at uclibc.org>
> Cc: Matt Weber <mlweber1 at rockwellcollins.com>, buildroot
> <buildroot at busybox.net>
> Date: 11/13/2013 03:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] omniorb: add COS Naming Service
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Peter Korsgaard <jacmet at uclibc.org>
> >>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas De Schampheleire
> <patrickdepinguin at gmail.com> writes:
> > Hi,
> >> Yuk, that's a pity...
> >> In this case my preference is to have the comment before the main
> >> option (so as close as possible), rather than after all sub options.
> >> What is your opinion?
> > I don't have a stong opion about it, but that's fine by me as well.
> > simple packages (most), it imho is a bit more logical to have it after
> > the option though (and it's what we are currently doing most places).
> As long as there are no suboptions that is indeed more logical.
> However, when suboptions are added the comment moves down, and
> depending on where new suboptions are added this may not be apparent
> from the diff output alone. So one way is to use one 'rule' which
> would be the comment above, or we keep simple packages without
> suboptions with the comment below, and make sure the comment is moved
> to the top when suboptions are added. The first alternative is easier
> to maintain, but less beautiful for the simple packages without
> If I had to pick, I'd pick the first alternative, for easier
> maintainability and uniformity.
I agree, I would have liked to keep it right below the main option,
but above is a reasonable location, since if it was placed below all
suboptions I could see it get confusing.
> Best regards,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the buildroot