[Buildroot] [PATCH 1 of 2] generic packages: rename FOO_MAKE_OPTS into FOO_MAKE_OPT
Thomas De Schampheleire
patrickdepinguin at gmail.com
Wed Jul 23 05:21:50 UTC 2014
"Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998 at free.fr> schreef:
>On 2014-07-22 21:55 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire spake thusly:
>> Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin at gmail.com> schreef:
>> >The autotools infrastructure allows packages to specify FOO_MAKE_OPT and
>> >FOO_MAKE_ENV. The generic infrastructure does not use this variable, but
>> >some individual packages define them for use in their own BAR_CMDS.
>> >However, some of these packages call this define FOO_MAKE_OPTS, rather than
>> >FOO_MAKE_OPT. This is currently not a real problem, but it is inconsistent.
>> >Moreover, the upcoming kconfig-package infrastructure will also use
>> >FOO_MAKE_OPT, so generic packages that also use kconfig-package have no
>> >choice but use the singular name.
>> This last reason isn't really valid as the kconfig infra could choose to
>> use OPTS iso OPT.
>> Note that I personally find OPTS more logical, but I do think we should
>> be consistent between autotools and generic.
>> We could also go in the other direction and change pkg-autotools and the
>> depending packages to use OPTS. What do you think of that?
>NAK, because of br2-external. If we were to s/OPT/OPTS/ then all
>existing br2-external packages would be broken.
I think we should be careful in using this as argument, because it very soon means that we cannot change anything anymore in the infrastructure.
In the past, developers adding custom packages to Buildroot also had to deal with changes in the infra. Moving to external doesn't change that.
>We could somewhat limit this brokenness by accepting the legacy OPT,
>and warn the user that his packages are using the old variable. Since
>we would not be using the OPT variable for anything else, that would
>be somewhat workable, but we'd have an ugly kludge in our code.
>But I find it a gratuituous change.
>OK, we fsked up the API to begin with. Let's accept it, and move on! ;-)
A real problem will occur when we add a package that is both using autotools and kconfig, That's my original intention with these patches, how do you think we should handle that?
More information about the buildroot