From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 23:01:32 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] List of pending patches: what to do? In-Reply-To: References: <20130731191415.545f7dff@skate> <20130801182311.6bb6e57e@skate> Message-ID: <52094D2C.7080001@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 02/08/13 10:33, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Samuel Martin wrote: >> Thomas, all, >> >> 2013/8/1 Thomas Petazzoni : >>> Dear Samuel Martin, >>> >>> On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 00:13:35 +0200, Samuel Martin wrote: >>> >>>> 2013/7/31 Thomas Petazzoni : >>>> >>>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/243426 Fix bug with dependencies of *-rebuild and *-reconfigure >>>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/172278 pkg-infra: limit -reconfigure and -rebuild actions >>>> Both treat the same thing! >>>> A "political decision" has to be made on this since it slightly >>>> changes the way some BR commands work. >>> >>> Can we have a decision on those ones? >>> >>> On my side, I kind of like the fact that 'make blabla-rebuild' both >>> rebuilds the blabla package and regenerates the root filesystem. It >>> avoids the need for 'make blabla-rebuild && make'. However, it's true >>> that it's inconsistent with 'make blabla-dirclean', which just removes >>> the build directory, and therefore requires a 'make blabla-dirclean && >>> make' if you want to completely rebuild a package from scratch. >> >> IIRC, we talked about this during some BR dev days or patchwork-day >> session, and in the end we kept statu quo. >> >> I'd rather be in favor of these patches, although I barely use the >> *-re{configure,build} targets; I also don't use them because they're not convenient :-) I typically use make foo-clean-for-rebuild foo so for me the patch would be really convenient (except that I typically use several buildroot versions in parallel so I'll forget if I can use the -rebuild target or not). >> anyway it's just one opinion among others. >> > > I am currently used to -reconfigure and -rebuild to rebuild also the > rootfs, but I also agree it's inconsistent with the other targets. If > we want to be strict, then foo-reconfigure can only configure, not > build. And foo-rebuild can only build. > Hence, to get the original behavior of: > foo-reconfigure --> foo-reconfigure all > foo-rebuild --> foo-rebuild all > > Is that understanding correct? > As long as we can document this properly, also in the ChangeLog, then > I'm fine with this semantic change. Adding 'all' isn't the end of the > world. BTW the report of the last developer meeting [1] says that we were going to accept these patches. Regards, Arnout [1] http://elinux.org/Buildroot:DeveloperDaysFOSDEM2013#Action_point_list -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 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