From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 00:24:31 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 6/6] package/mtools: new host-package In-Reply-To: References: <296699691239a90d5118c5cbe72f1ff57b3761a5.1362693294.git.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> <20130310124944.261867c4@skate> <201303110102.06732.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> <513F62F0.6050303@lucaceresoli.net> Message-ID: <513FB92F.4010107@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 03/12/13 18:40, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Luca Ceresoli wrote: [snip] >> Bottom line, I think it would be useful to save in the package manifest >> an additional column stating whether the package is on the target, on >> the host, or both. But skipping host-only packages is not safe. I agree. And I have a second reason for that: I have one customer who distributes an "SDK", i.e. host packages. > I follow Luca's reasoning here. As we discussed on the Buildroot > Developer Day 2012, we will include the toolchain/host sources > precisely for the above reasons, and so they should be described in a > manifest. I also agree with Thomas' point about the confusion. > > But, instead of an extra column, wouldn't it be more clear to separate > the legal-license manifest files for host and target packages? This > would result in a manifest-host.csv and manifest.csv. Packages that > appear on both host and target, would be present in both files. An end > user that is only interested in getting a list of target packages, can > find that info in a glance. Very good idea. Regards, Arnout -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F