From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:47:25 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] package/Makefile.in: export O= to post-build/image scripts for out-of-tree builds In-Reply-To: (Arnout Vandecappelle's message of "Mon, 17 Jul 2017 23:34:01 +0200") References: <20170714130417.18857-1-peter@korsgaard.com> <7d2448b0-800c-cb14-657b-907d380787f8@mind.be> <871spe92ci.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <87wp757vz6.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 >>>>> "Arnout" == Arnout Vandecappelle writes: Hi, >> Yes, that can also work - Even though it is less obvious that you should >> run make O=${BASE_DIR} inside the post build/image scripts, instead of >> make O=$O > OK, but having both exported seems a bit silly... Correct. I would argue that O is somewhat nicer than BASE_DIR, as the user is already using O= (and if they don't use O=, then they also don't need to pass it in post-build/post-image scripts), but we have exported and documented BASE_DIR for some time now, so we cannot really get rid of it. >> > O has the problem that it's too risky to lead to conflicts IMO. >> >> Even for post build/image scripts? What use cases do you have in mind >> where there could be conflicts? > True, in EXTRA_ENV the risk is minimal - especially since Kbuild and > derivatives (like Buildroot) ignore an O passed through the environment. Indeed. I don't feel strongly pro/con, what do others say? -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard