From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:22:23 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2 of 2] generic packages: rename FOO_CONFIGURE_OPTS into FOO_CONFIGURE_OPT In-Reply-To: <5b961fc80eb2d23373a6.1406056892@localhost> References: <9d1a7e2626ad1d2e4b42.1406056891@localhost> <5b961fc80eb2d23373a6.1406056892@localhost> Message-ID: <20140727152223.38c38d68@free-electrons.com> 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 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:21:32 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > As FOO_MAKE_OPTS has been renamed to FOO_MAKE_OPT, this patch renames > FOO_CONFIGURE_OPTS into FOO_CONFIGURE_OPT for symmetry reasons. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas De Schampheleire > > --- > Note: TARGET_CONFIGURE_OPTS has not been changed since the impact is very > large. It would make sense to change it too, though, so let me know what you > think. Yeah, I'm a bit worried with the discrepancy between TARGET_CONFIGURE_OPTS, TARGET_CONFIGURE_ARGS, HOST_CONFIGURE_OPTS and HOST_CONFIGURE_ARGS that use the plural form, vs those per-package _OPT options. My feeling is that the plural form looks more logical, so instead of moving from _OPTS to _OPT, I'd rather like to see a move from _OPT to _OPTS. But that indeed involves changing a *lot* of packages. What do others think? Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com