From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:54:47 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v5 1/1] ktap: new package In-Reply-To: References: <1675197757.16219192.1386680505536.JavaMail.root@openwide.fr> <874n6g6d0r.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <87zjo84vjm.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <52A74757.8030100@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 10/12/13 15:49, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Peter Korsgaard wrote: >>>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas De Schampheleire writes: >> >> Hi, >> >> > The first seems to emphasize that we require a Linux kernel to be >> > built in buildroot, while the second one leaves it in the middle. For >> > packages that actually build kernel modules, like ktap, we really need >> > the kernel inside buildroot, right? Are there any packages that depend >> > on BR2_LINUX_KERNEL that do _not_ require an in-buildroot kernel? >> >> I don't think so, as BR2_LINUX_KERNEL is the symbol to build a linux >> kernel internally. > > Ok, sounds logical. > So what is the best comment text? Simply: > "foo needs a Linux kernel to be built" Sounds good to me. "to be built by buildroot" would be more accurate but probably too verbose. Regards, Arnout > ? > > If we can agree on something I will submit a patch to make this consistent. > > Thanks, > thomas > _______________________________________________ > buildroot mailing list > buildroot at busybox.net > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot > -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be 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