From: Carlos Santos <casantos@datacom.com.br>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/3] package/waf: add a blind Config.in.host
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 21:34:03 -0200 (BRST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1870289102.225265.1546558443354.JavaMail.zimbra@datacom.com.br> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190103220652.GG5991@scaer>
> From: "Yann Morin" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
> To: "Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
> Cc: "Peter Korsgaard" <peter@korsgaard.com>, "Mahyar Koshkouei" <mahyar.koshkouei@gmail.com>, "Thomas De Schampheleire"
> <thomas.de_schampheleire@nokia.com>, "buildroot" <buildroot@buildroot.org>
> Sent: Quinta-feira, 3 de janeiro de 2019 20:06:52
> Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/3] package/waf: add a blind Config.in.host
> Thomas, All,
>
> On 2019-01-03 22:50 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly:
>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 22:55:21 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
>> > Well, I am not really happy with that, though: do we really plan on
>> > having packages really select all the host tools they need?
>> >
>> > If so, do we really envision autotools-based packages selecting
>> > host-autoconf, host-automake, host-libtool? And then packages that use
>> > host-pkgconf you should also select it...
>> >
>> > Also, what about host-cmake, which is conditionally built, but for which
>> > we do not have the info in kconfig? (well, we can argue we'd have to do
>> > like we do for host-gcc, but still). Oh, and host-tar, host-flex,
>> > host-bison, and so on... :-/
>>
>> Meh, I hadn't thought of conditional packages like host-tar, host-cmake
>> and so on.
>>
>> > So, no, I'm not happy with that direction...
>> >
>> > config BR2_PACKAGE_FOO
>> > bool "foo"
>> > select BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_AUTOCONF
>> > select BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_AUTOMAKE
>> > select BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_LIBTOOL
>> > select BR2_PACKAGE_MAYBE_HOST_TAR
>> > select BR2_PACKAGE_MAYBE_HOST_FLEX_FOR_KCONFIG
>> > select BR2_PACKAGE_MAYBE_HOST_BISON_FOR_KCONFIG
>> > select BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_PKGCONF
>> >
>> > Unles we're planning on hiding that away into meta-config, like:
>> >
>> > config BR2_PACKAGE_FOO
>> > bool "foo"
>> > select BR2_AUTOTOOLS_PACKAGE # mimick $(eval $(autotools-package))
>> > select BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_PKGCONF_BECAUSE_IT_S_NOT_MANDATORY
>> >
>> > And still, the optionally-required host packages like tar, flex et al.
>> > are not covered...
>> >
>> > Meh... :-(
>>
>> Indeed, I understand the "Meh" here. I hadn't really realized what it
>> would mean to have Config.in.host options for all packages, and
>> properly selected by all its users.
>
> To be fait, I was initially also in favour of adding Config.in.host
> options for all host packages. But this waf patch made me change my
> mind, becasue of the above...
>
>> But still, there are a number of cases where it would really help, so
>> that a given host package can be aware that another host package has
>> been built with a given feature (or not). Or precisely to force that a
>> certain host package is built with a given option. For example, in
>> host-python, we had situations where only a given package needed
>> host-python to be built with FOO support, and since we don't have any
>> BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_PYTHON_FOO option, our only choice was to
>> unconditionally enable FOO support in host-python, adding build time to
>> everyone, even if FOO in host-python might only be needed for one
>> obscure package.
>
> In this case, maybe we could simply depart from the rule, and just have
> python/Config.in.host contain just:
>
> # Select this if you need host-python to support 'stuff'
> config BR2_NEEDS_HOST_PYTHON_WITH_STUFF
> bool
>
> And then, python/python.mk would have:
>
> ifeq ($(BR2_NEEDS_HOST_PYTHON_WITH_STUFF),y)
> HOST_PYTHON_CONF_OPTS += --with-stuff
> else
> HOST_PYTHON_CONF_OPTS += --without-stuff
> endif
>
> Regards,
> Yann E. MORIN.
>
>> It seems like we don't have a very conclusive decision on this topic at
>> this point.
Well, I'm happy that my work helped you guys to analyze the pros and
cons of having Config.in.host for all host packages. Looks like it's
not a good idea, so I will mark the patches as refused in patchwork.
--
Carlos Santos (Casantos) - DATACOM, P&D
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-03 23:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-23 17:19 [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/3] package/waf: add a blind Config.in.host Carlos Santos
2018-12-23 17:19 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 2/3] doc/manual: document the waf packages may need to select host-waf Carlos Santos
2018-12-26 21:31 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2018-12-23 17:19 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 3/3] package/mpv: selec host-waf Carlos Santos
2018-12-26 21:30 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/3] package/waf: add a blind Config.in.host Thomas Petazzoni
2018-12-26 21:55 ` Yann E. MORIN
2019-01-03 21:50 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2019-01-03 22:06 ` Yann E. MORIN
2019-01-03 22:14 ` Yann E. MORIN
2019-01-03 23:34 ` Carlos Santos [this message]
2019-01-04 8:58 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2019-01-04 10:05 ` Carlos Santos
2019-01-04 10:10 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2019-01-04 11:06 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2019-01-04 11:51 ` Yann E. MORIN
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1870289102.225265.1546558443354.JavaMail.zimbra@datacom.com.br \
--to=casantos@datacom.com.br \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox