From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:42:04 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] bluez5_utils: Add config option to install "bdaddr" In-Reply-To: <20170215063911.ojfnao67fbpsojy7@tarshish> References: <1487084632-16396-1-git-send-email-vishalthanki@gmail.com> <20170214160844.ts44yh2l4ghzwvad@tarshish> <20170214211443.00dc1a10@free-electrons.com> <20170215063911.ojfnao67fbpsojy7@tarshish> Message-ID: <20170215094204.22df2cb5@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 Wed, 15 Feb 2017 08:39:11 +0200, Baruch Siach wrote: > > How many tools are provided by bluez5_utils? If it's just a very small > > set of tools, it's OK to have one option for each. But if there are > > many small tools, we definitely don't want to have one option for each. > > The bluez5_utils-5.43 tools/ subdirectory has 56 executables, totaling 5.7MB. > Some are covered by covered by --enable-tools which we enable unconditionally, > some other are installed by --enable-experimental, and yet others are only > built by --enable-experimental. bdaddr falls in the last category. > > > In any case, we need to provide a better guideline to Vishal, because > > right now, we are not explaining how the patch should be fixed. If we > > introduce something like BR2_PACKAGE_BLUEZ5_UTILS_TOOLS, then what > > should be done with BR2_PACKAGE_BLUEZ5_UTILS_CLIENT or > > BR2_PACKAGE_BLUEZ5_UTILS_GATTTOOL for example ? > > All should go under BR2_PACKAGE_BLUEZ5_UTILS_TOOLS, as well as --enable-tools, > IMO. Well, 5.7 MB and 56 executables is definitely not a small amount, so I would tend to instead accept a more fine-grained selection of the tools. However, if indeed --enable-tools is optional, we shouldn't enable it unconditional, but have an option for that. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com