[Buildroot] [PATCH] qt5base: fix misspelling of "directfb"

[Buildroot] [PATCH] qt5base: fix misspelling of "directfb"

[Matt Kraai]

---
 package/qt5/qt5base/Config.in | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/package/qt5/qt5base/Config.in b/package/qt5/qt5base/Config.in
index 64a7f65..6933523 100644
--- a/package/qt5/qt5base/Config.in
+++ b/package/qt5/qt5base/Config.in
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_QT5BASE_DIRECTFB
 	bool "directfb support"
 	depends on BR2_PACKAGE_DIRECTFB
 
-comment "directfb backend if directb is enabled"
+comment "directfb backend if directfb is enabled"
 	depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_DIRECTFB
 
 config BR2_PACKAGE_QT5BASE_XCB
-- 
2.9.3

[Buildroot] [PATCH] qt5base: fix misspelling of "directfb"

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 19:09:56 -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:

> -comment "directfb backend if directb is enabled"
> +comment "directfb backend if directfb is enabled"
>  	depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_DIRECTFB

Thanks, but this sentence in fact doesn't make a lot of sense. It
should be something like:

	directfb backend needs directfb to be enabled

Or perhaps no comment at all because it's completely obvious that to
use DirectFB functionality, you need DirectFB.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH] qt5base: fix misspelling of "directfb"

[Matt Kraai]

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:56AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 19:09:56 -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
> 
> > -comment "directfb backend if directb is enabled"
> > +comment "directfb backend if directfb is enabled"
> >  	depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_DIRECTFB
> 
> Thanks, but this sentence in fact doesn't make a lot of sense. It
> should be something like:
> 
> 	directfb backend needs directfb to be enabled
> 
> Or perhaps no comment at all because it's completely obvious that to
> use DirectFB functionality, you need DirectFB.

If the comment is removed, then there is no indication that a directfb
backend is available if directfb is disabled.  That's inconsistent
with the handling of the other backends, which have the following
comments if they're not available:

* X.org XCB backend available if X.org is enabled
* eglfs backend available if OpenGL and EGL are enabled

Should I still remove the comment?  Or make the message consistent
with the other backends (i.e., "directfb backend available if directfb
is enabled")?

-- 
Matt                                           https://ftbfs.org/~kraai/

[Buildroot] [PATCH] qt5base: fix misspelling of "directfb"

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 06:47:54 -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:

> If the comment is removed, then there is no indication that a directfb
> backend is available if directfb is disabled.  That's inconsistent
> with the handling of the other backends, which have the following
> comments if they're not available:
> 
> * X.org XCB backend available if X.org is enabled
> * eglfs backend available if OpenGL and EGL are enabled

Indeed.

> Should I still remove the comment?  Or make the message consistent
> with the other backends (i.e., "directfb backend available if directfb
> is enabled")?

Let's keep the comment, just adjusted.

Thanks a lot!

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com