From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 23:22:45 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] boot/uboot: add option to define custom dependencies In-Reply-To: <20200425211350.GR5035@scaer> References: <20200425000629.2068191-1-heiko@sntech.de> <20200425153810.2e86813e@windsurf.home> <20200425211350.GR5035@scaer> Message-ID: <20200425232245.6e13c5a6@windsurf.home> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 23:13:50 +0200 "Yann E. MORIN" wrote: > My opinion on that patch is that i am definitely not in favour of it. If > we go that route, then we would have to allow adding any such arbitrary > dependencies to a wide range of packages. Without necessarily strongly supporting Heiko's patch, I think it is important to keep in mind that U-Boot is not a package like any others. We offer version selection for U-Boot, custom Git/Subversion repo selection, which we do not offer for other packages. U-Boot has zillions of forks, support for gazillions platforms each with their own funky requirements. We've already added a BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_CUSTOM_MAKEOPTS to pass custom make options, adding the possibility to add custom dependencies would go in the same direction. I however agree that this kind of option is a good recipe for people to do their own hacks on their side, instead of finding a proper way to do it that can be upstreamed to Buildroot. > Now, there are two situations: > > - the tool is already in Buildroot: add a new _NEEDS_FOO option like > we already have. > > - the tool is in a br2-external tre: this is in my opinion better > served by working on the evaluation-postpone changes Arnou and I > have been suggesting for quite a while now. I think it would make sense to hear about what Heiko's use case exactly is, this might help. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com