[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] pixiewps: added missing dependency

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] pixiewps: added missing dependency

[Guillaume W. Bres]

Fix problem encountered by autobuild. 22/46 toolchains have been successfully tested here.

Signed-off-by: Guillaume W. Bres <guillaume.bressaix@gmail.com>
---
 package/pixiewps/Config.in | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/package/pixiewps/Config.in b/package/pixiewps/Config.in
index 97240f5..5354dd9 100644
--- a/package/pixiewps/Config.in
+++ b/package/pixiewps/Config.in
@@ -1,7 +1,11 @@
 config BR2_PACKAGE_PIXIEWPS
 	bool "pixiewps"
+	depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_THREADS=y
 	help
 	  Pixie WPS is a C based tool to audit networks against the so
 	  called "Pixie Dust" attack.
 
 	  https://github.com/wiire-a/pixiewps/wiki
+
+comment "pixiewps needs a toolchain w/ threads"
+	depends on !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_THREADS
-- 
2.7.4

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] pixiewps: added missing dependency

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello Guillaume,

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:08:23 +0200, Guillaume W. Bres wrote:

> +	depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_THREADS=y

Should be just depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_THREADS. You can look at
all the other packages to have examples on how to do things like that.

Also, please add in the commit log something like this:

"""
Fixes:

   http://autobuild.buildroot.org/results/...
"""

with an actual error to a build failure reported by the autobuilders.
The mention "22/46 toolchains have been successfully tested here." is
not useful because we don't know what "here" means, nor which
toolchains have been tested.

Thanks,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] pixiewps: added missing dependency

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:08:23 +0200, Guillaume W. Bres wrote:
> Fix problem encountered by autobuild. 22/46 toolchains have been successfully tested here.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Guillaume W. Bres <guillaume.bressaix@gmail.com>
> ---
>  package/pixiewps/Config.in | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

Applied to master, thanks.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] pixiewps: added missing dependency

[Guillaume W. Bres]

Fixes 
	
	http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/0c8d0eeb693ac29739845f489caffc2f9fa3b262/

Signed-off-by: Guillaume W. Bres <guillaume.bressaix@gmail.com>
---
 package/pixiewps/Config.in | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/package/pixiewps/Config.in b/package/pixiewps/Config.in
index 97240f5..05719f4 100644
--- a/package/pixiewps/Config.in
+++ b/package/pixiewps/Config.in
@@ -1,7 +1,11 @@
 config BR2_PACKAGE_PIXIEWPS
 	bool "pixiewps"
+	depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_THREADS
 	help
 	  Pixie WPS is a C based tool to audit networks against the so
 	  called "Pixie Dust" attack.
 
 	  https://github.com/wiire-a/pixiewps/wiki
+
+comment "pixiewps needs a toolchain w/ threads"
+	depends on !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_THREADS
-- 
2.7.4

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] pixiewps: added missing dependency

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:33:53 +0200, Guillaume W. Bres wrote:
> Fixes 
> 	
> 	http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/0c8d0eeb693ac29739845f489caffc2f9fa3b262/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Guillaume W. Bres <guillaume.bressaix@gmail.com>

Thanks, I'll apply. Just a few more comments for future
contributions, as suggestions to improve them:

 - Don't use the past tense in the commit log. Your commit has not
   "added" something, but it's *adding* something. So please always use
   forms like "add missing dependency", "remove this", "change that",
   and not a past tense.

 - The commit title could be more specific: "add missing dependency on
   threads"

 - When you send a second iteration of a patch, please generate it with
   "git format-patch -v2", which will change the patch prefix to:

     [PATCH v2]

   And also include a changelog of what changed since the previous
   iteration under the "---" that is below the Signed-off-by line. This
   helps people reviewing your patches understand what were the changes
   between each iteration. For a simple patch like this one, this is
   not a big deal of course, but I thought I should mention this best
   practice.

Thanks!

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com