From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 09:56:10 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v10 01/10] rustc: new virtual package In-Reply-To: <20180209084906.GB6503@itchy> References: <20180204180749.29942-1-eric.le.bihan.dev@free.fr> <20180204180749.29942-2-eric.le.bihan.dev@free.fr> <20180208235221.1227a749@windsurf.lan> <20180209084906.GB6503@itchy> Message-ID: <20180209095610.5f4fa6a5@windsurf.lan> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 09:49:06 +0100, Eric Le Bihan wrote: > > 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 ? > > I do not see any problems using RUSTC_{HOST,TARGET}_NAME: it still caries > the same information as RUST_{HOST,TARGET}_NAME. Question is: are these host and target names "Rust" related, or "Rust compiler" related. If they are Rust related, the current RUST_ prefix makes more sense. If they are specific to the Rust compiler, then RUSTC_ would make more sense. If it isn't clear, then we can use RUSTC_ to avoid the problem :-) If you are happy with RUSTC_, could you submit a patch against "master" that does the renaming ? Thanks! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://bootlin.com