From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Ceresoli Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 23:57:02 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] User-enabled host packages? In-Reply-To: <20110930195805.0677ff0b@skate> References: <4E79E001.7010409@lucaceresoli.net> <20110930160415.69616a8d@skate> <20110930195805.0677ff0b@skate> Message-ID: <4E863B2E.7000602@lucaceresoli.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Thomas, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > >> Of course, explicit host packages will be treated the same way as >> dependency-host-packages on Config.in level, but I don't think this is >> a problem. > Not sure what you mean here, but that raises the question of > dependencies between host packages. I'm also unsure about what Thomas (De Schampheleire) means here, but this could be read as a feature as well. A package such as omap-u-boot-utils can be required to build an OMAP-signed image, thus being a dependency-host-package, or standalone to interact with the target, thus being an explicit host package. "Being treated in the same way" means it would work in both cases without additional effort... >>> All these Config.in.host >>> files are included in a single "Packages -> Host utitities" >>> submenu, from package/Config.in. There is no need to create >>> subsections in this menu at the moment, since the number of >>> utilities shown here is suspected to remain limited. >> If you want to add the new menu under Packages, then the description >> of that menu should change. Currently it is: >> "Package Selection for the target" >> A proposal is simply: >> "Package selection" >> >> The alternative is as proposed earlier: to put the menu at top-level. > No strong opinion here. Perhaps a new top-level menu is better, I don't > know. I personally feel a top-level menu would be better, leaving the "packages" menu to list what has to be on the target. Luca