From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4DACC433FE for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 21:14:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C50081327; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 21:14:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 6C50081327 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9aXW2PCkbBDm; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 21:14:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ash.osuosl.org (ash.osuosl.org [140.211.166.34]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBBBA8131D; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 21:14:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org CBBBA8131D Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by ash.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 284041BF31D for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 21:14:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C274023B for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 21:14:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 02C274023B X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FT2-NIlnDU1D for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 21:14:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 5D3C840219 Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D3C840219 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 21:14:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id j14so24133322ljh.12 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 14:14:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=mime-version:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=/P1TajJbGKUeLENOVgHmUZtj778O3WDgrv0kA1t/Gk8=; b=WXbPcJEwSrP11Kx6rnAME3KgCj6NuB0UgmcLZ7kCt26PrmdQIsQ9AElT9U1ANuYOzD 03IYA/7TOb3gv/4YWLPcHlTZ9EGwjFn+Zff1fz1qO3wl9cVYwdCzb8rWnh02nTshdJXH CAw3haNbqvEZpRKp5ySMSw1oxxZoxRS9YdujKS3kF5+SdpPnn9ONryLg3Mqj9IWaQozk R0NJEHb5QZNcWjrYWzTbvozJ9wTZ2emzCbHzHrUjSwA6Sz1MERu79VD+EZWuLV4bVF3V 0Xa87gyzPBhtS28/hbW66/hWIaWAIs7VtuwqH5V7YMu1G3/OqEibPwBTVWFlwKk8W0Tj s9OQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1iWSP96nbLQuW8dFSc74c7ImI28Uv3IeJAcwe2ri02sqqgAi1l FIW8SR1W+ya0KBU0+e3qciAu4yOsJ/ZZ/Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4Y0Fxesn9tttJ7noxHBO7HDSvPnO/wiT4DWuIbsfCehU3Zb1LTdOtW3C91feqYNguDczf3ng== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a9a9:0:b0:261:bf5a:8ff3 with SMTP id x41-20020a2ea9a9000000b00261bf5a8ff3mr17067049ljq.252.1666818849663; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 14:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wkz-x13 (h-98-128-229-186.NA.cust.bahnhof.se. [98.128.229.186]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k16-20020a05651c10b000b0026dcac60624sm831465ljn.108.2022.10.26.14.14.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 26 Oct 2022 14:14:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Tobias Waldekranz To: Thomas Petazzoni In-Reply-To: <20221026221528.393a1d39@windsurf> References: <20221020141412.346992-1-tobias@waldekranz.com> <20221020141412.346992-4-tobias@waldekranz.com> <20221026221528.393a1d39@windsurf> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 23:14:08 +0200 Message-ID: <875yg69tjz.fsf@waldekranz.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=waldekranz-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=/P1TajJbGKUeLENOVgHmUZtj778O3WDgrv0kA1t/Gk8=; b=2TWpMmMQif3en1g0pBQ+lFxxZSBtqobqhZwC/5CoJvknCY155Mnaj837L4HyDd+VS3 ejVAZAzAW5eBrKNlueKKffe0aFYjgxut+iZG1FY74kHsGplzHdIze2ytnLP4BYPB3kZI 2yZuFAa4k0wwMw45vnQ7nm76vP6poIr0wd63+RBbSB0W8piou+iIYZls+NtuQM3/DsLq ZvB5mOSSUjszShyMLX3Z9ZtRaWeqwaQgPhy1UxRL8jqWsN1Y+HVf6UUkFPDhsXK50gGO aljrCLyu9M8VFt16+eVYcHDHu98zkrGP9c/zLmQ7bMkHrVxSNn9Xez1oC5HYjpS/aFFh YM4g== X-Mailman-Original-Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=waldekranz-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.i=@waldekranz-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=2TWpMmMQ Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 3/4] package/libbpf: extract dependencies to separate kconfig symbol X-BeenThere: buildroot@buildroot.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion and development of buildroot List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Romain Naour , buildroot@buildroot.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: buildroot-bounces@buildroot.org Sender: "buildroot" On ons, okt 26, 2022 at 22:15, Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot wrote: > Hello Tobias, > > On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 16:14:11 +0200 > Tobias Waldekranz wrote: > >> This makes it obvious that the comment is just the negation of the >> dependency requirements. It also makes it easier for other packages to >> depend on libbpf. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tobias Waldekranz >> --- >> package/libbpf/Config.in | 15 ++++++++------- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/package/libbpf/Config.in b/package/libbpf/Config.in >> index 1465366c9e..7e816c193d 100644 >> --- a/package/libbpf/Config.in >> +++ b/package/libbpf/Config.in >> @@ -1,11 +1,16 @@ >> -config BR2_PACKAGE_LIBBPF >> - bool "libbpf" >> +config BR2_PACKAGE_LIBBPF_SUPPORTED >> + bool >> depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_SYNC_4 >> depends on BR2_USE_WCHAR # elfutils >> depends on !BR2_STATIC_LIBS # elfutils >> depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_THREADS # elfutils >> depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HEADERS_AT_LEAST_4_13 >> depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_USES_UCLIBC || BR2_TOOLCHAIN_USES_GLIBC # elfutils > > I'm afraid, but we don't do this in Buildroot, in none of our packages. > I think our rationale is that by duplicating these dependencies, it is > easier to maintain the Config.in comment in the packages that select > BR2_PACKAGE_LIBBPF. Fair enough, I will drop this change in v2 and copy the information to kmemd.mk instead. Is there a convention for how to comment dependencies that stem from grandparent packages? E.g. v2, kmemd.mk will declare: depends on BR2_USE_WCHAR # as libbpf requires it, but only because of its dependency on elfutils. So what is the proper in this case? "elfutils" or "libbpf"? Or maybe something like "elfutils->libbpf"? > I agree it's a very arbitrary choice, but we really strongly want > things to be consistent between all Buildroot packages, so we cannot > change this for just one package. If we want to change this, it needs > to be discussed (advantages vs. drawbacks), then the documentation > needs to be updated, and all packages changed. Completely understand. As a Buildroot user, I really appreciate that consistency! > Best regards, > > Thomas > -- > Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering and training > https://bootlin.com > _______________________________________________ > buildroot mailing list > buildroot@buildroot.org > https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot