From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?QXJuYXVkIFLDqWJpbGxvdXQ=?= Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 08:01:31 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] dbus-triggerd: new package In-Reply-To: <5331E316.4030706@mind.be> References: <1395734396-31668-1-git-send-email-rebillout@syscom.ch> <1395734396-31668-2-git-send-email-rebillout@syscom.ch> <5331E316.4030706@mind.be> Message-ID: <53327B4B.2010005@syscom.ch> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Arnout, > For the other dbus-* packages, the dbus dependencies are repeated (even > though they're automatic because of the depends on DBUS). So I would do > that here as well. And that means of course that there should also be a > comment in case of missing toolchain features. See dbus-cpp for an example. You're right, I forgot the comments, and the host-pkgconf dependency as well. I will do as you suggest for the DBUS dependencies. > Patch misses a description + Signed-off-by. Correct. > If you're anyway patching the Makefile, you can just as well make it: > > CFLAGS?=-Wall -O3 > CFLAGS+=`$(PKG_CONFIG) --cflags dbus-1` > LDLIBS+=`$(PKG_CONFIG) --libs dbus-1` > > > > Will you send this patch upstream? Yep. I will send a patch right now. > This should be $(TARGET_CONFIGURE_OPTS) which includes all of the above > and more. OK. Actually, I've always been wondering it was OK to use TARGET_CONFIGURE_OPTS in a generic package, I never dared to do it. > Note BTW that the patch above refers to LDLIBS instead of LDFLAGS. Is > LDFLAGS used? Yep, LDFLAGS is used automatically by Make in this Makefile. Thanks for your comments, I will send the patch upstream a wait a little for the author's comments on it. Regards -- Arnaud R?billout -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: