[Buildroot] [PATCH v10 01/10] rustc: new virtual package

[Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>]

Hello,

+Peter, Arnout, Ricardo in Cc.

On Sun,  4 Feb 2018 19:07:40 +0100, Eric Le Bihan wrote:

> diff --git a/package/rustc/rustc.mk b/package/rustc/rustc.mk
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..7a951c0cfd
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/package/rustc/rustc.mk
> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
> +################################################################################
> +#
> +# rustc
> +#
> +################################################################################
> +
> +RUSTC_ARCH = $(call qstrip,$(BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_RUSTC_ARCH))
> +RUSTC_ABI = $(call qstrip,$(BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_RUSTC_ABI))
> +
> +RUST_TARGET_NAME = $(RUSTC_ARCH)-unknown-linux-gnu$(RUSTC_ABI)
> +
> +ifeq ($(HOSTARCH),x86)
> +RUSTC_HOST_ARCH = i686
> +else
> +RUSTC_HOST_ARCH = $(HOSTARCH)
> +endif
> +
> +RUST_HOST_NAME = $(RUSTC_HOST_ARCH)-unknown-linux-gnu

check-package is not happy with RUST_TARGET_NAME and RUST_HOST_NAME
because they don't have a RUSTC_ prefix, even though they are defined
in rustc.mk:

./package/rustc/rustc.mk:10: possible typo: RUST_TARGET_NAME -> *RUSTC*
./package/rustc/rustc.mk:18: possible typo: RUST_HOST_NAME -> *RUSTC*

Would renaming them to RUSTC_TARGET_NAME and RUSTC_HOST_NAME make
sense ? Or do we need to keep RUST_TARGET_NAME/RUST_HOST_NAME and add
an exception in check-package ?

Thanks for your feedback,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://bootlin.com