[Buildroot] [git commit master 1/1] toolchain: do not require full path

[Buildroot] [git commit master 1/1] toolchain: do not require full path

[Mike Frysinger]

commit: http://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=d2f7323f78e449cf195df73e334fa39440127a9e
branch: http://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=refs/heads/master

If the toolchain can be found via $PATH, then requiring the full path to
it is unnecessary.

Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
---
 package/Makefile.in |    4 ++++
 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/package/Makefile.in b/package/Makefile.in
index 85e6550..fb09083 100644
--- a/package/Makefile.in
+++ b/package/Makefile.in
@@ -116,7 +116,11 @@ TARGET_CROSS=$(STAGING_DIR)/usr/bin/$(REAL_GNU_TARGET_NAME)-
 else ifeq ($(BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL),y)
 TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_PREFIX:=$(call qstrip,$(BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_PREFIX))
 TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_PATH:=$(call qstrip,$(BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_PATH))
+ifneq ($(TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_PATH),)
 TARGET_CROSS=$(TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_PATH)/bin/$(TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_PREFIX)-
+else
+TARGET_CROSS=$(TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_PREFIX)-
+endif
 else ifeq ($(BR2_TOOLCHAIN_CTNG),y)
 TARGET_CROSS=$(TOOLCHAIN_DIR)/bin/$(REAL_GNU_TARGET_NAME)-
 endif
-- 
1.7.1

[Buildroot] [git commit master 1/1] toolchain: do not require full path

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes:

 Mike> commit: http://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=d2f7323f78e449cf195df73e334fa39440127a9e
 Mike> branch: http://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=refs/heads/master

 Mike> If the toolchain can be found via $PATH, then requiring the full path to
 Mike> it is unnecessary.

Thanks, but please don't commit to the buildroot tree directly. We use a
setup like the kernel, so send patches/pull requests like everyone else.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] [git commit master 1/1] toolchain: do not require full path

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday, October 16, 2010 17:14:20 Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> Thanks, but please don't commit to the buildroot tree directly. We use a
> setup like the kernel, so send patches/pull requests like everyone else.

np.  there didnt seem to be any developer documentation that explained this, 
nor did people comment on my patches.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20101016/9e8740dd/attachment.pgp>

[Buildroot] [git commit master 1/1] toolchain: do not require full path

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes:

Hi,

 Mike> On Saturday, October 16, 2010 17:14:20 Peter Korsgaard wrote:
 >> Thanks, but please don't commit to the buildroot tree directly. We use a
 >> setup like the kernel, so send patches/pull requests like everyone else.

 Mike> np.  there didnt seem to be any developer documentation that
 Mike> explained this, nor did people comment on my patches.

I'm doing my best, but I know there's quite a backlog at the moment. If
you follow the list you will see me commenting on patching and
committing several times a week though.

Regarding documentation, http://buildroot.net/git.html does state:

Because you've only been granted anonymous access to the tree, you won't
be able to commit any changes. Changes can be submitted for inclusion by
posting them to the buildroot mailing list or to the Bug and Patch
Tracking System. 

Which I agree could be clearer.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] [git commit master 1/1] toolchain: do not require full path

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sunday, October 17, 2010 07:37:57 Peter Korsgaard wrote:
>>Mike Frysinger writes:
>> On Saturday, October 16, 2010 17:14:20 Peter Korsgaard wrote:
>>> Thanks, but please don't commit to the buildroot tree directly. We use
>>> a setup like the kernel, so send patches/pull requests like everyone
>>> else.
>>
>> np.  there didnt seem to be any developer documentation that
>> explained this, nor did people comment on my patches.
> 
> I'm doing my best, but I know there's quite a backlog at the moment. If
> you follow the list you will see me commenting on patching and
> committing several times a week though.

i merely highlighted the logic behind my actions.  i didnt say "you must fix 
this right now!".

> Regarding documentation, http://buildroot.net/git.html does state:
> 
> Because you've only been granted anonymous access to the tree, you won't
> be able to commit any changes. Changes can be submitted for inclusion by
> posting them to the buildroot mailing list or to the Bug and Patch
> Tracking System.

"can" is not the same thing as "must", plus that applies to "anonymous 
access".  neither of which i am restricted by (otherwise my push would have 
been rejected).

maybe my admin state on the box implicitly grants me the permissions today, 
although i was a large buildroot developer in the past before you took over.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20101017/b96d2bd8/attachment.pgp>

[Buildroot] [git commit master 1/1] toolchain: do not require full path

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes:

Hi,

 Mike> maybe my admin state on the box implicitly grants me the
 Mike> permissions today, although i was a large buildroot developer in
 Mike> the past before you took over.  -mike

Indeed. You (and Berhard and a few other admins) are also in the
buildroot group for safety reasons.

I'm grateful of your contributions now and in the past - Just that we're
using a different development flow now than in the svn ghetto days.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] [git commit master 1/1] toolchain: do not require full path

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday, October 16, 2010 17:14:20 Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> Thanks, but please don't commit to the buildroot tree directly. We use a
> setup like the kernel, so send patches/pull requests like everyone else.

what about branches ?  i dont see a problem with letting people 
create/maintain/push their own branches.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20101022/6f3b91f2/attachment.pgp>

[Buildroot] [git commit master 1/1] toolchain: do not require full path

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello Mike,

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:19:23 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> what about branches ?  i dont see a problem with letting people 
> create/maintain/push their own branches.

I'm pushing branches into my personal repo at
http://git.buildroot.net/~tpetazzoni/git/buildroot/. I think it's
better for developers to have their own personal repositories, and only
have the Buildroot maintainer, i.e Peter, as the sole committer to the
official repository.

As an active contributor, I fully support Peter's position as the
maintainer and unique committer of Buildroot. Since he took over the
project early 2009, Buildroot has made tremendous improvements in
various areas, and I'd appreciate if we could keep the worflow as it is
working now.

Regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20101022/e4afe053/attachment.pgp>

[Buildroot] [git commit master 1/1] toolchain: do not require full path

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes:

 Mike> On Saturday, October 16, 2010 17:14:20 Peter Korsgaard wrote:
 >> Thanks, but please don't commit to the buildroot tree directly. We use a
 >> setup like the kernel, so send patches/pull requests like everyone else.

 Mike> what about branches ?  i dont see a problem with letting people 
 Mike> create/maintain/push their own branches.

Sure, but in their own trees, not in the official buildroot tree.

Again, just like it's done for the kernel and other proects.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] [git commit master 1/1] toolchain: do not require full path

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
>>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes:
>
> ?Mike> On Saturday, October 16, 2010 17:14:20 Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> ?>> Thanks, but please don't commit to the buildroot tree directly. We use a
> ?>> setup like the kernel, so send patches/pull requests like everyone else.
>
> ?Mike> what about branches ? ?i dont see a problem with letting people
> ?Mike> create/maintain/push their own branches.
>
> Sure, but in their own trees, not in the official buildroot tree.
>
> Again, just like it's done for the kernel and other proects.

not really.  there are plenty of examples where people are allowed to
maintain their own branch in the same "master" tree.  uClibc, glibc,
OE off the top of my head.
-mike

[Buildroot] [git commit master 1/1] toolchain: do not require full path

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes:

 >> Again, just like it's done for the kernel and other proects.

 Mike> not really.  there are plenty of examples where people are allowed to
 Mike> maintain their own branch in the same "master" tree.  uClibc, glibc,
 Mike> OE off the top of my head.

True. Again, we use the approach of the Linux kernel (and copied by
u-boot, barebox, ..).

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] [git commit master 1/1] toolchain: do not require full path

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 04:32:58 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> not really.  there are plenty of examples where people are allowed to
> maintain their own branch in the same "master" tree.  uClibc, glibc,
> OE off the top of my head.

I personally don't see any big advantage of this option compared to the
current organization and workflow, it seems just to be a matter of
personal taste. So let's keep the workflow we've been using for the
last two years, which has proven to be pretty good for Buildroot
development.

Regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com