From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 09:58:11 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/3] package/waf: add a blind Config.in.host In-Reply-To: <1870289102.225265.1546558443354.JavaMail.zimbra@datacom.com.br> References: <20181223171950.3979-1-casantos@datacom.com.br> <20181226223005.71dca29a@windsurf> <20181226215521.GL14286@scaer> <20190103225052.3feb76c6@windsurf> <20190103220652.GG5991@scaer> <1870289102.225265.1546558443354.JavaMail.zimbra@datacom.com.br> Message-ID: <20190104095811.33a189e4@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello Carlos, On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 21:34:03 -0200 (BRST), Carlos Santos wrote: > Well, I'm happy that my work helped you guys to analyze the pros and > cons of having Config.in.host for all host packages. Looks like it's > not a good idea, so I will mark the patches as refused in patchwork. I don't think we can conclude yet "it's not a good idea". At this point, my feeling is more: the consequences are worse than I initially expected, which requires some more thoughts on how we want to handle that. Again, what was your motivation for adding those Config.in.host options in the first place, specifically for waf ? Was it just about getting this whole discussion started, and use waf just as a simple first example ? Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com