From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg?= Krause <joerg.krause@embedded.rocks>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 20:56:43 +0200
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] package/lua: do not install man files
In-Reply-To: <20150922160121.2c878fa6@free-electrons.com>
References: <1442876342-10841-1-git-send-email-joerg.krause@embedded.rocks>
 <20150922160121.2c878fa6@free-electrons.com>
Message-ID: <1442948203.2525.1.camel@embedded.rocks>
List-Id: <buildroot.busybox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: buildroot@busybox.net

On Di, 2015-09-22 at 16:01 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello J?rg,
> 
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 00:59:02 +0200, J?rg Krause wrote:
> > As written in the holy manual:
> > http://buildroot.org/downloads/manual/manual.html#faq-no-doc-on-tar
> > get
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: J?rg Krause <joerg.krause@embedded.rocks>
> > ---
> >  package/lua/lua.mk | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/package/lua/lua.mk b/package/lua/lua.mk
> > index 1279b76..af5cef3 100644
> > --- a/package/lua/lua.mk
> > +++ b/package/lua/lua.mk
> > @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ define HOST_LUA_BUILD_CMDS
> >  endef
> >  
> >  define LUA_INSTALL_STAGING_CMDS
> > -	$(MAKE) INSTALL_TOP="$(STAGING_DIR)/usr" -C $(@D) install
> > +	$(MAKE) INSTALL_TOP="$(STAGING_DIR)/usr" INSTALL_MAN= -C
> > $(@D) install
> >  	$(INSTALL) -m 0644 -D $(@D)/etc/lua.pc \
> >  		$(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib/pkgconfig/lua.pc
> >  endef
> > @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ define LUA_INSTALL_TARGET_CMDS
> >  endef
> >  
> >  define HOST_LUA_INSTALL_CMDS
> > -	$(MAKE) INSTALL_TOP="$(HOST_DIR)/usr" -C $(@D) install
> > +	$(MAKE) INSTALL_TOP="$(HOST_DIR)/usr" INSTALL_MAN= -C
> > $(@D) install
> >  	$(INSTALL) -m 0644 -D $(@D)/etc/lua.pc \
> >  		$(HOST_DIR)/usr/lib/pkgconfig/lua.pc
> >  endef
> 
> This is in fact not needed. Buildroot is already removing the man
> pages
> in the target-finalize step of the main Makefile. I have checked, the
> Lua man pages are installed in standard locations, so they are
> properly
> removed by this generic removal step.
> 
> For this reason, I am not sure it is really worth to add more
> complexity to a package to avoid doing something that is anyway
> already
> handled at some later point in a generic way. It would be worth if
> that
> thing was actually taking a significant amount of build time, or
> required additional dependencies. But it's not the case here, so i
> would be tempted to leave the Lua package as is, and not take this
> patch.
> 
> Opinions?
> 

I see! I didn't know about this. I just build the lua package (without
make all) and saw the man files in my target tree.

Many thanks for clarification! I'll mark this patch as rejected...

J?rg