From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 14:28:07 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [RFC] Unification of package comments on wchar, largefile, c++ support, thread, ... support In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130906142807.44427db7@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Thomas De Schampheleire, On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 12:37:05 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > My question to the community: do we agree on the wording above (foo > needs a toolchain w/ XXX, YYY)? > If yes, then I will proceed to making the changes. Do we really want to use all uppercase, even for things like thread support? We have the choice between: (1) All lower-case comment "directfb needs a toolchain w/ ipv6, rpc, thread, wchar" (2) Lower-case, except when it doesn't make sense (acronyms) comment "directfb needs a toolchain w/ IPv6, RPC, thread, wchar" (3) All upper-case comment "directfb needs a toolchain w/ IPv6, RPC, THREAD, WCHAR" Also, the other question is which features do we mention. IPv6, RPC, largefile, wchar, C++ and thread have always been there. However, the need for dynamic library hasn't been always but in the comments, but you were suggesting to include it. Also, what about MMU dependency ? Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com