From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Ceresoli Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:00:40 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/2] omap-u-boot-utils: add new package In-Reply-To: <20110919224432.705c22ac@skate> References: <1315934373-16561-1-git-send-email-luca@lucaceresoli.net> <1316444007-10968-1-git-send-email-luca@lucaceresoli.net> <20110919224432.705c22ac@skate> Message-ID: <4E79DFF8.6000506@lucaceresoli.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Thomas, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Le Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:53:26 +0200, > Luca Ceresoli a ?crit : > >> +config BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_OMAP_U_BOOT_UTILS >> + bool "omap-u-boot-utils" >> + help >> + U-Boot Utilities for Texas Instrument's OMAP platforms. >> + Say Y if you want these utilities on the development host. >> + >> + https://github.com/nmenon/omap-u-boot-utils > > I continue to disagree with the fact of adding an host utility in the > Config.in menu, or at least not without a broader discussion about this. > > Since we have started to normalize the generation of host packages > (late 2009/early 2010), we decided that host packages should *not* > appear in the menuconfig, but that they rather should only be handled > through make dependencies. Sorry, I didn't know: I was not closely following the buildroot development at that time. > If we decide to change this decision, we > need to think about it globally, i.e what we want to do for *all* host > packages and not only particular cases. > > I must admit there are other cases for which being able to show host > packages to users would be useful. For example, on AT91 platforms, > there is an host utility called SAM-BA which allows to reflash an AT91 > device through the USB device port. This host utility could be > conveniently downloaded, extracted and installed into $(HOST_DIR) by > Buildroot, but we have currently no way of doing this. > > Some thing for OpenOCD. Jean-Christophe has recently added support for > it for the target, but being able to build OpenOCD on the host and > install it in $(HOST_DIR) would also be useful for those of us who want > to build ready-to-use development environments with Buildroot. > > Anyway, in the mean time, I'm NACKing those patches until a proper > discussion has taken place, resulting in the definition of a solution > that works for all host packages. I understand. I just posted a v2 to have the trivial fixes and improvements requested so far and stop thinking about them. I'm going to start a new thread right now to open the discussion. Luca