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

[Luka Perkov]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 01:30:49PM +0200, Jonas Gorski wrote:
> 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 do not agree. If you have not noticed we already have those as configuration
options. Now I am just trying to set proper defaults.

> I rather meant outside of these, that would make an argument that this is
> anything more than just adding a hackfix for a hackfix.

Well, I think we should have different rootfs directories for profiles. But
this series does not only address that problem.

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