[Buildroot] [PATCH 6 of 6] uclibc: update-config: preserve freshly configured settings
arnout at mind.be
Thu Jul 17 23:28:51 UTC 2014
On 17/07/14 19:57, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> Hi Arnout,
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout at mind.be> wrote:
>> On 15/07/14 20:33, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>>> Hi Arnout,
>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout at mind.be> wrote:
>>>> On 14/07/14 13:50, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>>>>> In the sequence:
>>>>> make uclibc-menuconfig
>>>>> make uclibc-update-config
>>>>> the freshly configured settings from the menuconfig are lost during the
>>>>> update-config step. This is because update-config depends on the configure
>>>>> step, which starts by copying the config file to the build directory.
>>>>> Instead, stop depending on the configure step from update-config, and
>>>>> introduce a new stamp file .stamp_config_fixup_done, which applies any
>>>>> fixups on the .config file.
>>>> I think the commit message should explain why this stamp file is preferred over
>>>> repeating the fixup in each target.
>>> I'm trying to come up with good reasons here, but the only real one I
>>> can find is to avoid duplicating code and avoid redoing the fixup
>>> Did you have anything else in mind?
>> Well, I never proposed to introduce an extra stamp file, did I? :-)
>> The reasons you put forward are OK, they should just be mentioned in the commit
>> message because it's a change from how things are currently done, and this
>> should be motivated. That way, if someone later on finds a reason to revert to
>> repeating the fixup, they can see why it was done this way to begin with.
> Is the commit message of v2 sufficient for you or should I add something?
How about: "With the extra stamp file, we avoid redoing the fixup unnecessarily."
(I don't have time now to look at v2 in detail.)
>> BTW, it doesn't really avoid duplication of code. Now we have repetitions of
>> $(UCLIBC_DIR)/.stamp_configured: $(UCLIBC_DIR)/.stamp_config_fixup_done
>> and otherwise we'd have repetitions of
>> define UCLIBC_CONFIGURE_CMDS
> Yes true.
> If others also prefer the repeating of FIXUP_DOT_CONFIG over the stamp
> file solution I can change that, of course.
I'm OK with either way.
I'm not really a big fan of adding an extra stamp file. However, I can imagine
that we'll evolve towards a new generic step between patch and configure (also
for e.g. autoreconf); then this approach will match nicely with the generic
Actually, this is probably one for Peter to rule upon.
> Best regards,
Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F
More information about the buildroot