From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 21:19:40 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] a philosophical question about Config.in and "comment" directives In-Reply-To: <55313266.9000600@mind.be> (Arnout Vandecappelle's message of "Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:18:46 +0200") References: <20150417150042.GA5271@free.fr> <55313266.9000600@mind.be> Message-ID: <87a8y2vc8j.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, >>> that layout makes it far clearer that the entire option depends on >>> arm or you see *nothing* and, further, internally, the dependencies >>> in the comment list *only* those dependencies that the user will be >>> warned that they need if they want this selection. > I completely agree. Me too. >> So yes, you are right _on principle_. But we're not gonna change that >> policy, and we'll continue to require new packages to conform to it. > We _could_ change the policy and just require new packages to conform to the > new policy. We do that regularly (cfr. patch naming, BR2_ prefix, ...). > That said, I don't think the current situation is bad enough to > warrant such a change. No indeed. I wouldn't mind new patches doing it like this, but I don't want to se the churn to change our ~1500 existing packages to it. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard