From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:40:18 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCHv2][RESEND] python-protobuf: Add support for Python implementation of Google's Protocol Buffers In-Reply-To: <20120920223439.6480353a@skate> References: <20120917105103.GA17573@localhost.comm5.com.br> <20120920223439.6480353a@skate> Message-ID: <505B8D42.8010108@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 09/20/12 22:34, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: >> > +PYTHON_PROTOBUF_VERSION = $(PROTOBUF_VERSION) >> > +PYTHON_PROTOBUF_SOURCE = $(PROTOBUF_SOURCE) >> > +PYTHON_PROTOBUF_SITE = $(PROTOBUF_SITE) > So the source tarball is the same? So what you're doing here in fact is > having two separate Buildroot packages for the same source tarball, > something that we generally don't do. But in this case, it seems like > logical to do it this way. > > What do others think about this strategy? > It's a good start, but I still think we need more generic infrastructure for this use case. For instance, this will fail if protobuf moves to a hg version, because then PROTOBUF_SOURCE is empty. For the time being, it's OK, however. Regards, Arnout -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286540 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F