From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 13:47:48 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [git commit master 1/1] ed: bump to version 1.5 In-Reply-To: <4D133AB5.1010507@zacarias.com.ar> References: <20101222232249.DB1F38E20B@busybox.osuosl.org> <20101223082919.0d574cf8@surf> <87vd2kswmm.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <20101223095612.60df592b@surf> <87mxnwsvpz.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <4D133AB5.1010507@zacarias.com.ar> Message-ID: <20101223134748.33ba89eb@surf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 09:04:05 -0300 Gustavo Zacarias wrote: > Should we go for gentargets even if they behave like auto thus making > the package file a tad bigger/redundant? No strong opinion on this. The thing is that as time goes, the autotools infrastructure may make more and more assumptions on the fact that the build system is actually autotools-based. So maybe such packages might break in the future, so technically, GENTARGETS would be a better fit. But as you said, this will involve quite a bit of redundancy. Hard to say what the right (tm) solution is. An intermediate solution is to add a comment above ED_CONF_OPT to explain why it's done, so that if ed build breaks in the future, we're warned that the AUTOTARGETS infrastructure has been abused by this package. Regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com