Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 3/4] package/libbpf: extract dependencies to separate kconfig symbol

[Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot <buildroot@buildroot.org>]

Hello Tobias,

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 16:14:11 +0200
Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@waldekranz.com> wrote:

> This makes it obvious that the comment is just the negation of the
> dependency requirements. It also makes it easier for other packages to
> depend on libbpf.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@waldekranz.com>
> ---
>  package/libbpf/Config.in | 15 ++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/package/libbpf/Config.in b/package/libbpf/Config.in
> index 1465366c9e..7e816c193d 100644
> --- a/package/libbpf/Config.in
> +++ b/package/libbpf/Config.in
> @@ -1,11 +1,16 @@
> -config BR2_PACKAGE_LIBBPF
> -	bool "libbpf"
> +config BR2_PACKAGE_LIBBPF_SUPPORTED
> +	bool
>  	depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_SYNC_4
>  	depends on BR2_USE_WCHAR # elfutils
>  	depends on !BR2_STATIC_LIBS # elfutils
>  	depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_THREADS # elfutils
>  	depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HEADERS_AT_LEAST_4_13
>  	depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_USES_UCLIBC || BR2_TOOLCHAIN_USES_GLIBC # elfutils

I'm afraid, but we don't do this in Buildroot, in none of our packages.
I think our rationale is that by duplicating these dependencies, it is
easier to maintain the Config.in comment in the packages that select
BR2_PACKAGE_LIBBPF.

I agree it's a very arbitrary choice, but we really strongly want
things to be consistent between all Buildroot packages, so we cannot
change this for just one package. If we want to change this, it needs
to be discussed (advantages vs. drawbacks), then the documentation
needs to be updated, and all packages changed.

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering and training
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot