From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:58:48 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] core/sdk: generate the SDK tarball ourselves In-Reply-To: References: <20180609210607.13259-1-yann.morin.1998@free.fr> <1528737656.28705.131.camel@impinj.com> <9ca7c9e9-061c-1dfb-f348-b92407b2f7e0@mind.be> <1528825657.28705.168.camel@impinj.com> <20180612210124.18e1f168@windsurf> <20180613115705.43c5b5b3@windsurf> Message-ID: <20180613135848.1fcd56bb@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:03:45 +0300, Stefan Becker wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:57 PM Thomas Petazzoni > wrote: > > > > However, generally speaking, I do agree that we tend to push back on > > people proposing to add more complexity to Buildroot, for the reasons > > I've highlighted before. > > Wouldn't it then be much simpler to reject this change, i.e. *not* > adding tarball generation to buildroot SW build at all? That's one option. Another option is to: (1) Use another make target, such as sdk-tarball, as you suggested (2) Use a stable name for the output, like output/images/buildroot-sdk.tar.gz. Indeed for no other Buildroot output we include the Git commit ID or the target tuple in the name of the file being generated. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com