From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:26:26 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] Different site methods for the main package and patches In-Reply-To: <87vbv0inub.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> References: <53331268.4030205@mind.be> <20140326233712.4347c3c8@skate> <87vbv0inub.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <20140327002626.0ec83331@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Peter Korsgaard, On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 23:42:20 +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > > *) I don't really understand why we have a separation between _SITE > > and _SOURCE, and why our infra assumes that _PATCH is relative to > > _SITE. Why don't we simply make _SOURCE and _PATCH full URLs > > instead? This way _PATCH can list multiple patches coming from > > different locations, not necessarily the upstream location of the > > package. > > Some of it is historical, but it also makes it easier to support > the primary/backup site features. Even if: BLEH_SOURCE = http://foobar.com/bleh-$(BLEH_VERSION).tar.gz we can do: $(notdir $(BLEH_SOURCE)) to retrieve just the filename and look it up on the primary/backup sites, no? Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com