[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] util-linux: allow programs to be disabled by default

[Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>]

On 06/30/15 23:35, Danomi Manchego wrote:
> Thomas,
> 
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Thomas Petazzoni
> <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>> Dear Danomi Manchego,
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:36:08 -0400, Danomi Manchego wrote:
>>
>>> +ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_DISABLE_BY_DEFAULT),y)
>>> +UTIL_LINUX_CONF_OPTS += --disable-all-programs
>>> +endif
>>
>> I understand the idea, but it's a bit weird to have an option to enable
>> to say that you want to disable everything.
>>
>> Also, we are already passing --disable-all-programs when
>> BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_BINARIES is not enabled. Maybe we should instead
>> pass --disable-all-programs unconditionally. However this would change
>> the visible behavior for users, since programs that used to be built
>> would no longer be built. But it seems the most correct solution
>> nonetheless.
>>
>> Any opinions from other Buildroot developers?
> 
> I use util-linux only as a last resort for when busybox does not have
> what I need - so I'm totally on-board with that idea, as my interest
> is for minimal impact on the target.  The only reason that I didn't do
> that is for precisely what you said - that it would change the current
> behavior.  Also, I supposed that we would still need an option to
> *not* set --disable-all-programs anyway, to support enabling all the
> programs that are currently enabled by default (and don't have
> existing buildroot switches), to be able to get back to the previous
> behavior.  (For those who need it.)

 I think it should be --disable-all-programs by default, and a new
BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_ALL_BINARIES that does --enable-all-programs and that
hides all the individual tool options.

 As to changing the default, I'm not too worried about it, since only the pg
tool is "new".

> An alternative might be to add --enable/--disable switches for all the
> apps that are enabled by default.  But that's a lot of new switches,
> and a maintenance hassle on package upgrades, so I was afraid that
> this option might not be well received by the community.  (I'm willing
> to give that a go if that seems like a good idea.)

 Indeed, too much hassle.

 However, unless I'm mistaken, pg is the only one missing at the moment... So it
doesn't seem to be *that* much hassle.


 Regards,
 Arnout
-- 
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:  7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF