[Buildroot] [PATCHv3 2/5] core: allow external Config.in/makefile code to be integrated
rjbarnet at rockwellcollins.com
Thu Nov 28 12:09:33 UTC 2013
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com> wrote on 11/28/2013
> Dear Jeremy Rosen,
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:37:27 +0100 (CET), Jeremy Rosen wrote:
> > my idea was more along the line of "if we are setting BR2_EXTERNAL
> > and the file doesn't exist, then create an empty "Config.in" file
> > so the next call to make doesn't fail"
> > this would be to avoid leaving the build system in a broken
> > configuration after a call that sets up the build system for the
> > user.
> > I can see pro and cons on this idea, there is a risk in touching
> > a file the user is supposed to edit and the breakage itself could
> > be considered a good way to make sure the user go look into the
> > file
> > but on the other hand, for simple use cases where the user doesn't
> > want to add new packages, but simply overlay a couple of config
> > files, creating a valid infrastructure from the start might be
> > a good idea...
> Ok, I think I see what you mean: creating
> $(BR2_EXTERNAL)/package/Config.in automatically if it doesn't exist. I
> don't have a really strong feeling about this, but my initial reaction
> is that it's better to let the user do that by himself. BR2_EXTERNAL is
> part of the user source tree, and I hate when tools mess up with my
> source tree by creating files here and there automatically.
I'm in agreement with Thomas on this issue. I would prefer it if the user
has to create the file (even with it being blank). However, maybe we could
a test within the main makefile that if BR2_EXTERNAL is used and there is
no "package/Config.in" present we through a make error prompt the user to
create this file. I prefer this method since it would be teaching the user
how to correctly use this feature instead of doing some hidden
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the buildroot