From: Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] lua interpreter choice?
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 01:11:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140730231154.GC3961@free.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANxTyt6GCC6K1NPyCGf9rHrO6T0o+y7K+PAioWKdRPZysDbhcA@mail.gmail.com>
Danomi, All,
On 2014-07-30 18:34 -0400, Danomi Manchego spake thusly:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Thomas Petazzoni
> <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > Dear Danomi Manchego,
> >
> > On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:51:49 -0400, Danomi Manchego wrote:
> >
> >> > this change in the virtual-package behavior was introduced by
> >> > http://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=91169d3346e543be18139e18bdcc52a2345e0d16
> >> > (infra/pkg-virtual: validate only one provider provides an implementation)
> >> >
> >> > Fran?ois
> >>
> >> But the menuconfig still lets you select both packages, instead of
> >> providing a choice of one or the other (like "jpeg support"). Is this
> >> not undesirable?
> >
> > We discussed this before doing the commit pointed by Fran?ois.
> > Unfortunately, there's no good solution to solve this problem at the
> > kconfig level. The only solution would be to have each package being a
> > provider of a certain virtual package, have the knowledge of *all*
> > providers of that virtual packages to do a "depends
> > on !BR2_PACKAGE_<foo>". While for lua vs. luajit this seems more or
> > less reasonable, as we probably don't expect to have more providers
> > than just lua and luajit, but in the general case, we have things like
> > libgles or egl (for OpenGL support) which have multiple providers, and
> > we don't want to have to edit all of them whenever we add a new
> > provider.
> >
> > Not speaking about packages in BR2_EXTERNAL, which we cannot control.
> >
> > So our decision was to use a build-time check rather than a
> > kconfig-time check.
> >
> > Hope this clarifies the situation,
>
> Let me apologize in advance if I'm still missing something obvious but
No problem. WE also stumbled on this issue.
> - what distinguishes the lua/luajit case from the libjpeg/jpeg-turbo
> case, or the systemd/eudev case? Is the virtual-package
> infrastructure + kconfig choice not suitable here?
It all relates to packages in br2-external. See:
http://nightly.buildroot.org/#outside-br-custom
Let's take an example: libEGL. libEGL is a virtual package that can be
provided by a few pacakges in Buildroot. So we, as the Buildroot
community, have the knowledge of our providers. We could technically
make a choice to select the appropriate provider, yes.
However, libEGL can also be provided by packages in BR2_EXTERNAL. For
example, there are a lot of boards with proprietary, non-public
implementations of libEGL.
ow, since we do not have the knowledge of those packages, we can't add
them to the choice. And we can't have a "dynamic" choice either.
So, for those kind of packages, we can not do better than to do a
build-time test, that the configuration is consistent.
As for lua, now. I can see your point that the two could be used at the
same time on the target. I don't see how we could solve this easily
(well, I have a very slight idea, but it's ugly.)
However, I can think that there are alternative (aka non-public,
proprietary) implementations of Lua, too, that could be used in
BR2_EXTERNAL. So, we can not offer a choice for that either.
Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.
--
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
| Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ |
| +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-30 23:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-30 16:59 [Buildroot] lua interpreter choice? Danomi Manchego
2014-07-30 17:31 ` Mike Zick
2014-07-30 18:47 ` François Perrad
2014-07-30 18:51 ` Danomi Manchego
2014-07-30 21:40 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2014-07-30 22:34 ` Danomi Manchego
2014-07-30 23:11 ` Yann E. MORIN [this message]
2014-07-30 23:19 ` Yann E. MORIN
2014-07-30 23:49 ` Danomi Manchego
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140730231154.GC3961@free.fr \
--to=yann.morin.1998@free.fr \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox