From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:00:16 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2018-03-26 In-Reply-To: <20180327094754.35db48d1@windsurf.home> (Thomas Petazzoni's message of "Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:47:54 +0200") References: <20180327060026.543B0206F3@mail.bootlin.com> <20180327064509.n3kp4rdolibyqwud@sapphire.tkos.co.il> <20180327091525.7e785751@windsurf.home> <87in9it123.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20180327094754.35db48d1@windsurf.home> Message-ID: <871sg6t0bz.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes: > Hello, > On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:44:36 +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote: >> > Arnout, Peter, any preference ? I'm leaning towards (2) since that's >> > the solution that doesn't pollute Buildroot with unnecessary stuff. >> >> I agree. It does mean that we need all autobuilders to update, but that >> shouldn't be a big problem. > It also means that if someone uses autobuild-run to test another branch > than 2018.02.x, master or next, we have no idea whether we should use > "dependencies" or "core-dependencies". Unless we detect what make target to use by looking in support/dependencies/dependencies.mk for the 'core-dependencies:' line instead of based on the branch name. > But well, I believe autobuild-run is kind of an internal tool, it's not > really meant to be used as a generic tool. If people do this, then it's > up to them to figure out how to tweak it. I agree. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard