From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 14:18:24 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 3/4] libv4l: add elfutils optional dependency In-Reply-To: <20181103122758.10578-3-fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com> References: <20181103122758.10578-1-fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com> <20181103122758.10578-3-fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20181103141824.6e47adbc@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 13:27:57 +0100, Fabrice Fontaine wrote: > Bump to version 1.61.1 added an optional dependency to elfutils: > https://git.linuxtv.org/v4l-utils.git/commit/?id=d6025b0e8c7f57b0f9390f987acc5eed57360d80 > > host-clang is also needed to build PBF protocols, see: PBF -> BPF > https://git.linuxtv.org/v4l-utils.git/commit/?id=91b37c0d9cb71fc2d5f78cc96aa2ef9f3bba145b I'm not sure to understand: there are two separate commits upstream, one that adds the elfutils dependency, one that adds the clang dependency. Are they both needed to have BPF protocols ? If so, why were those two dependencies introduced in separate commits upstream ? > +ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_ELFUTILS),y) > +# host-clang is needed to build BPF protocols > +LIBV4L_DEPENDENCIES += elfutils host-clang > +endif I think an explicit sub-option would make sense in this case, because it's not trivial at all to know that you need elfutils. So I would prefer to have config BR2_PACKAGE_LIBV4L_KEYTABLE_BPF_PROTOCOLS bool "keytable BPF protocols" select BR2_PACKAGE_ELFUTILS depends on BR2_USE_WCHAR # elfutils depends on !BR2_STATIC_LIBS # elfutils depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_USES_UCLIBC || BR2_TOOLCHAIN_USES_GLIBC # elfutils Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com