From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Sat, 05 May 2018 17:26:35 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] Makefile: check rootfs overlays with BR2_ROOTFS_MERGED_USR enabled In-Reply-To: <20180505150621.GB14524@scaer> (Yann E. MORIN's message of "Sat, 5 May 2018 17:06:21 +0200") References: <20180503121958.9462-1-casantos@datacom.ind.br> <20180505100100.GA2481@scaer> <87po2aupu4.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20180505150621.GB14524@scaer> Message-ID: <87d0yaunro.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 >>>>> "Yann" == Yann E MORIN writes: Hi, >> Why? Overlays is the the recommended way to add/override stuff, and the >> 'everything-you-put-in-the-overlay-will-override-the-buildroot-defaults' >> is a pretty nice and easy to understand behaviour. > Well, I disagree quite a bit: overlays are ugly and 99% of what users > do with an overlay can be done with a package (i.e. adding data blobs). > The remaining 1% can be done with a post-build script. > Besides, what you put in an overlay is never accoutnted for: no > graph-size, no legal-info, no nothing... > Repeat after me: overlays are ugly! ;-) > Two things that overlays are noce for: > - provide /etc/-style config files to be written over the default ones, > - provide test-data that is not supposed to go into production, and > for which a package may be a bit overkill, and even then... > Otherwise, overlays are just a pita and, long term, are a liability... Do you feel better now? ;) I agree that they can be abused - But don't forget, overlays were added to get people away from custom skeletons. I still find overlays quite a bit nicer than custom skeletons. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard