From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:01:21 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] package/lua: do not install man files In-Reply-To: <1442876342-10841-1-git-send-email-joerg.krause@embedded.rocks> References: <1442876342-10841-1-git-send-email-joerg.krause@embedded.rocks> Message-ID: <20150922160121.2c878fa6@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello J?rg, On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 00:59:02 +0200, J?rg Krause wrote: > As written in the holy manual: > http://buildroot.org/downloads/manual/manual.html#faq-no-doc-on-target > > Signed-off-by: J?rg Krause > --- > package/lua/lua.mk | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/package/lua/lua.mk b/package/lua/lua.mk > index 1279b76..af5cef3 100644 > --- a/package/lua/lua.mk > +++ b/package/lua/lua.mk > @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ define HOST_LUA_BUILD_CMDS > endef > > define LUA_INSTALL_STAGING_CMDS > - $(MAKE) INSTALL_TOP="$(STAGING_DIR)/usr" -C $(@D) install > + $(MAKE) INSTALL_TOP="$(STAGING_DIR)/usr" INSTALL_MAN= -C $(@D) install > $(INSTALL) -m 0644 -D $(@D)/etc/lua.pc \ > $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib/pkgconfig/lua.pc > endef > @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ define LUA_INSTALL_TARGET_CMDS > endef > > define HOST_LUA_INSTALL_CMDS > - $(MAKE) INSTALL_TOP="$(HOST_DIR)/usr" -C $(@D) install > + $(MAKE) INSTALL_TOP="$(HOST_DIR)/usr" INSTALL_MAN= -C $(@D) install > $(INSTALL) -m 0644 -D $(@D)/etc/lua.pc \ > $(HOST_DIR)/usr/lib/pkgconfig/lua.pc > endef This is in fact not needed. Buildroot is already removing the man pages in the target-finalize step of the main Makefile. I have checked, the Lua man pages are installed in standard locations, so they are properly removed by this generic removal step. For this reason, I am not sure it is really worth to add more complexity to a package to avoid doing something that is anyway already handled at some later point in a generic way. It would be worth if that thing was actually taking a significant amount of build time, or required additional dependencies. But it's not the case here, so i would be tempted to leave the Lua package as is, and not take this patch. Opinions? Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com