From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 14:37:43 +1300 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] Add BR2_CMAKE_USE_NINJA_BACKEND option In-Reply-To: <20170106223748.2203-1-cedric.marie@openmailbox.org> References: <20170106223748.2203-1-cedric.marie@openmailbox.org> Message-ID: <20170125143743.0df51d6d@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, On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 23:37:47 +0100, C?dric Marie wrote: > $(2)_CONF_ENV ?= > $(2)_CONF_OPTS ?= > +$(2)_INSTALL_STAGING_ENV ?= DESTDIR=$$(STAGING_DIR) > +$(2)_INSTALL_TARGET_ENV ?= DESTDIR=$$(TARGET_DIR) We don't have such options in any other package infrastructure. So I think I'd prefer if you kept just INSTALL_STAGING_OPTS and INSTALL_TARGET_OPTS, and define them to the appropriate value depending on whether you're using Ninja or Make. Are there any existing CMake package that overrides INSTALL_STAGING_OPTS or INSTALL_TARGET_OPTS ? If that's the case, then we cannot change its semantic like this without taking care of those packages first. But as I said in my other reply on this thread, I'd really like to get some justification of why adding support for the Ninja backend is useful. Thanks! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com