From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 23:04:30 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 06/16] package/dosfstools: add missing symlinks In-Reply-To: <1421684056-5266-7-git-send-email-maxtram95@gmail.com> References: <1421684056-5266-1-git-send-email-maxtram95@gmail.com> <1421684056-5266-7-git-send-email-maxtram95@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150308230430.5b8edb9e@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 Maxim Mikityanskiy, On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:14:06 +0200, Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote: > Install alternative symlinks for dosfstools mkfs.fat, fsck.fat and > fatlabel. Those symlinks are generally installed by make install, but > buildroot does not use make install for dosfstools, but symlinks should > be installed anyway. > > Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy Thanks, I've applied your patch, but I've basically rewritten entirely the installation logic to use makefile code instead of shell code. See http://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=cef6a787cad4d5417b8672c8fd4c200bf29655ac. To be honest, I wonder why dosfstools provides such sub-options to select which binaries should be installed. The binaries are really small: -rwxr-xr-x 1 thomas thomas 40780 mars 8 22:59 fatlabel -rwxr-xr-x 1 thomas thomas 42816 mars 8 22:59 fsck.fat -rwxr-xr-x 1 thomas thomas 24432 mars 8 22:59 mkfs.fat So I believe we could probably just install all of them unconditionally. But oh, well, this is for another patch. Thanks! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com