From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gustavo Zacarias Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:49:56 -0300 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] check: new package In-Reply-To: <55EDE533.30103@mind.be> References: <1441633062-8282-1-git-send-email-gustavo.zacarias@free-electrons.com> <55EDA1DE.4020904@mind.be> <55EDBB68.9020907@free-electrons.com> <55EDE533.30103@mind.be> Message-ID: <55EEE784.5090608@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 07/09/15 16:27, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >> Some people may use checkmk which is a host tool, which i remove for the target >> (probably needs full gawk instead of busybox awk, and not very useful in the >> target IMO). > > I fully agree on removing checkmk on the target. I can also see that you'd want > it on the host, but the user has no way to select it since there is no > Config.in.host... So the user would have to do an explicit 'make host-check' to > get it. It also won't be tested in the autobuilders. > > So in principle, we only have host packages that are dependencies of other > packages or that have a Config.in.host entry. An exception is when there is > another package that uses it but that has not yet been accepted. Probably the > reverse also exists: a host dependency that is no longer needed but the host > package still exists. > > Thomas recently proposed to violate this principle in the context of the > python-colorama package [1], to which I replied no [2]. But of course that's > still open for discussion. Hi Arnout. I don't have any particular use for the host variant, so no plan on arguing too much for it. I'll spin v2 unless someone objects the other way around with a valid argument. Regards.