From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 23:56:18 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 0/17 v2] Add new virtual-package infrastructure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140301235618.04b363a8@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Yann E. MORIN, On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 18:32:43 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > package/libgles: rename the _HAS and _PROVIDES variables > package/libegl: rename the _HAS and _PROVIDES variables > package/libopenmax: rename the _HAS and _PROVIDES variables > package/libopenvg: rename the _HAS and _PROVIDES variables > package/luainterpreter: rename the _HAS and _PROVIDES variables I certainly agree to ensure that the kconfig symbol matches the package name. However, I am not sure the renaming of BR2_PACKAGE_HAS_OPENGL_ES to BR2_PACKAGE_HAS_LIBGLES is really nice. BR2_PACKAGE_HAS_OPENGL_ES had the merit of explicitly containing the word "OpenGL", while LIBGLES makes that a bit more cryptic. Do we want to instead rename the package to libopengl-es or some other variation on this? A similar reflexion could be made on the naming of the libegl package. Of course, I'm open to other opinions on this, the above comments are not really a very strong opinion on my side. My original plan was to apply patches 1 -> 6 of your series in order to remove you a bunch of patches to handle, but I'm not sure about these renames. Thanks! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com