[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH 1/3] build: add support for options

[Jonas Gorski]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Luka Perkov <luka at openwrt.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 01:02:06PM +0200, Jonas Gorski wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Luka Perkov <luka at openwrt.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 06:59:15PM +0200, Jonas Gorski wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Luka Perkov <luka at openwrt.org> wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 05:24:32PM +0200, Jonas Gorski wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Luka Perkov <luka at openwrt.org> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 03:21:58PM +0200, Jonas Gorski wrote:
>> >> >> >> And further, in your approach you directly select the options, not
>> >> >> >> just change the defaults (in contrast to the default packages), so you
>> >> >> >> can't even deselect them anymore.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You can deselect options with this series. That was the goal and that is
>> >> >> > why there are HAVE_* options present. Give it a try.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So what is the difference to FEATURES:= then? These already select
>> >> >> different HAVE_FOO things. Can't you just add the missing features
>> >> >> there?
>> >> >
>> >> > FEATURES nor DEPENDS are not good candidates for this. They are global
>> >> > for target/subtarget. So you can not define in same target/subtarget for
>> >> > one profile to include only zImage and for other to include only uImage.
>> >> >
>> >> > You can see that does not work if you look how Freescale i.MX23/i.MX28
>> >> > (mxs) now behaves.
>> >>
>> >> So the clean solution is to make them both work at the same time, not
>> >> to add additional workarounds. Correct image generation should not
>> >> depend on profile selection. All these options currently alter the way
>> >> the single (ubi) rootfs is generated, while they should enable
>> >> different rootfs variants to be generated at the same time. This is
>> >> the root issue, and this is where it should be fixed. Yes, it isn't
>> >> easy to fix, but we should not break it further.
>> >
>> > I agree with you but this does not only solve ubi image generation
>> > problem. As explained before with this we can enable other options as
>> > well, thus once we have better fix for ubi images we can keep this for
>> > other purposes.
>>
>> Can you please provide an example of a current configuration option we
>> would want to enable from a profile?
>
> Look at 3/3.

I thought we already agreed that these are not good configuration
options. I rather meant outside of these, that would make an argument
that this is anything more than just adding a hackfix for a hackfix.



Jonas
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel