From: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
To: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Cc: David Lawson <david.lawson1@tx.rr.com>, buildroot@buildroot.org
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3] Makefile: fix use of many br2-external trees
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 20:28:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220921182835.GS1419013@scaer> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220921201320.0a7f80c0@windsurf>
Thomas, All,
On 2022-09-21 20:13 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 21:46:45 +0200
> "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> wrote:
[--SNIP--]
> > One of the rationale behind this code, is that we want the defconfig
> > files from br2-external trees further down the list, to override
> > defconfig files from those earlier in the list, even overriding the
> > defconfig files from Buildroot itself.
> This is the part I would like to challenge. Why do we want to allow
> BR2_EXTERNAL to override defconfigs from the main tree? We do not allow
> this for packages, why should we allow it for defconfigs?
This patch does not change the actual behaviour: we've been allowing
this for the past 6 years, we've documented it; all that patch does is
actually fix using more than 5 br2-external trees.
> To me, allowing the override of defconfigs is actually a bad idea: when
> you run "make foo_defconfig", it's no longer really clear which
> "foo_defconfig" is really going to be used. Yes, it's well defined, but
> it isn't "obvious".
I think initially, it was far simpler to do it that way, since we did
not have a list of defconfig files, and so we (ab)used make ability to
override a rule, to justify a simpler code on our side.
Changing that behaviour is now easier, now that we do have a list of
defconfig files, but if at all, that should be done in a follow-up
patch.
However, the multi br2-external support is there to cover one case: a
br2-xternal tree provides basic support for a board (e.g. by a team in
charge of the ardware support), and a second br2-external provides
defconfig for an actual product. In this case, given a board named
'foo', it is understanble that the harware guys name their defconfig
foo_defconfig, and that the product team also name their defconfig
foo_defconfig. So, I think allowing this overide is not a bad thing.
Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.
--
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
| Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ |
| +33 561 099 427 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-21 18:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-20 19:46 [Buildroot] [PATCH v3] Makefile: fix use of many br2-external trees Yann E. MORIN
2022-09-21 18:13 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2022-09-21 18:28 ` Yann E. MORIN [this message]
2022-09-21 18:32 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2022-09-21 18:57 ` Yann E. MORIN
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220921182835.GS1419013@scaer \
--to=yann.morin.1998@free.fr \
--cc=buildroot@buildroot.org \
--cc=david.lawson1@tx.rr.com \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox