package/cryptopp: add Config.in.host
PATCH 1/2 package/cryptopp: add Config.in.host
--- package/Config.in.host | 1 + package/cryptopp/Config.in.host | 6 ++++++ 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+) create mode 100644 package/cryptopp/Config.in.host
package/Config.in.host +1 -0
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ menu "Host utilities" source "package/checksec/Config.in.host" source "package/cmake/Config.in.host" source "package/cramfs/Config.in.host" + source "package/cryptopp/Config.in.host" source "package/cryptsetup/Config.in.host" source "package/dfu-util/Config.in.host" source "package/dos2unix/Config.in.host"
package/cryptopp/Config.in.host new file +6 -0
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ +config BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_CRYPTOPP + bool "host cryptopp" + help + A free C++ class library of cryptographic schemes + + https://www.cryptopp.com/
Signature · 1 line
2.19.2
PATCH 2/2 package/tegrarcm: select host-cryptopp and drop BR2_arm dependency
- It is not be strictly necessary to select host-cryptopp but let's do it like other host packages do.
- There is no reason to depend on the target architecture, since it's a host tool.
Yes, we could have separate commits to select host-cryptopp and drop BR2_arm dependency but that would be overkill.
--- package/tegrarcm/Config.in.host | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
package/tegrarcm/Config.in.host +1 -1
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_TEGRARCM bool "host tegrarcm" - depends on BR2_arm || BR2_armeb + select BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_CRYPTOPP help This program is used to send code to a Tegra device in recovery mode.
Signature · 1 line
2.19.2
PATCH 2/2 package/tegrarcm: select host-cryptopp and drop BR2_arm dependency
Hello,
Quoted 19 lines · Carlos Santos
- It is not be strictly necessary to select host-cryptopp but let's do it like other host packages do.
- There is no reason to depend on the target architecture, since it's a host tool.
Yes, we could have separate commits to select host-cryptopp and drop
BR2_armdependency but that would be overkill.Signed-off-by Carlos Santos <[email protected]>--- package/tegrarcm/Config.in.host | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)package/tegrarcm/Config.in.host +0
-0
package/tegrarcm/Config.in.host line 3
Quoted 3 lines
package/tegrarcm/Config.in.host +0
-1@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_TEGRARCM bool "host tegrarcm" - depends on BR2_arm || BR2_armeb
The idea of this dependency is that since tegracrm is only useful in conjunction with a Tegra-based system, there is not reason to build it if the target isn't ARM.
package/tegrarcm/Config.in.host line 3
Quoted 1 line
package/tegrarcm/Config.in.host +1
-0+ select BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_CRYPTOPP
So we are starting to add Config.in.host options for all packages ? Why are you doing this change ? What is the motivation ?
Best regards,
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
PATCH 2/2 package/tegrarcm: select host-cryptopp and drop BR2_arm dependency
Quoted 30 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
Hello,
Quoted 19 lines · Carlos Santos
- It is not be strictly necessary to select host-cryptopp but let's do it like other host packages do.
- There is no reason to depend on the target architecture, since it's a host tool.
Yes, we could have separate commits to select host-cryptopp and drop
BR2_armdependency but that would be overkill.Signed-off-by Carlos Santos <[email protected]>--- package/tegrarcm/Config.in.host | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)package/tegrarcm/Config.in.host +0
-0package/tegrarcm/Config.in.host line 3
Quoted 3 lines
package/tegrarcm/Config.in.host +0
-1@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_TEGRARCM bool "host tegrarcm" - depends on BR2_arm || BR2_armebThe idea of this dependency is that since tegracrm is only useful in conjunction with a Tegra-based system, there is not reason to build it if the target isn't ARM.
Quoted 4 lines
package/tegrarcm/Config.in.host line 3
Quoted 1 line
package/tegrarcm/Config.in.host +1
-0+ select BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_CRYPTOPPSo we are starting to add Config.in.host options for all packages ? Why are you doing this change ? What is the motivation ?
I think it's because I said "We need Config.in.host" :-)
Carlos, the move to Config.in.host is a bit more extensive. We not only need to
add Config.in.host files for all packages, we also need to add selects - which you do here.
Of course we can't do it all in one big shot, but still it should probably be
approached in a somewhat more structured way. For example, when we add a Config.in.host for a package, we also (perhaps in a separate commit) add the select statements for it in all packages that depend on it.
Also note that the idea was to make these Config.in.host options blind (i.e.
promptless).
Regards,
Arnout
PATCH 2/2 package/tegrarcm: select host-cryptopp and drop BR2_arm dependency
Quoted 37 lines
From: "Arnout Vandecappelle" <[email protected]>
To: "Thomas Petazzoni" <[email protected]>, "Carlos Santos" <[email protected]>
Cc: "buildroot" <[email protected]>
Sent: Quarta-feira, 12 de dezembro de 2018 7:04:25
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] package/tegrarcm: select host-cryptopp and dropBR2_armdependencyQuoted 30 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
Hello,
Quoted 19 lines · Carlos Santos
- It is not be strictly necessary to select host-cryptopp but let's do it like other host packages do.
- There is no reason to depend on the target architecture, since it's a host tool.
Yes, we could have separate commits to select host-cryptopp and drop
BR2_armdependency but that would be overkill.Signed-off-by Carlos Santos <[email protected]>--- package/tegrarcm/Config.in.host | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)package/tegrarcm/Config.in.host +0
-0package/tegrarcm/Config.in.host line 3
Quoted 3 lines
package/tegrarcm/Config.in.host +0
-1@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_TEGRARCM bool "host tegrarcm" - depends on BR2_arm || BR2_armebThe idea of this dependency is that since tegracrm is only useful in conjunction with a Tegra-based system, there is not reason to build it if the target isn't ARM.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
package/tegrarcm/Config.in.host line 3
Quoted 1 line
package/tegrarcm/Config.in.host +1
-0+ select BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_CRYPTOPPSo we are starting to add Config.in.host options for all packages ? Why are you doing this change ? What is the motivation ?
I think it's because I said "We need Config.in.host" :-)
Right. :-)
Quoted 3 lines
Carlos, the move to Config.in.host is a bit more extensive. We not only need to add Config.in.host files for all packages, we also need to add selects - which you do here.
Yes, tegrarcm is the only package depending in host-cryptopp.
Quoted 8 lines
Of course we can't do it all in one big shot, but still it should probably be approached in a somewhat more structured way. For example, when we add a Config.in.host for a package, we also (perhaps in a separate commit) add the select statements for it in all packages that depend on it.
Also note that the idea was to make these Config.in.host options blind (i.e. promptless).
Make sense if the host package exists only to support building another package (that selects and depends on it) but there are other reasons why a host package may be necessary, e.g. I need host-mtools for a post-image script.
Signature · 1 line
Carlos Santos (Casantos) - DATACOM, P&D
PATCH 2/2 package/tegrarcm: select host-cryptopp and drop BR2_arm dependency
Hello Carlos,
Quoted 6 lines · Carlos Santos
Quoted 6 lines
Of course we can't do it all in one big shot, but still it should probably be approached in a somewhat more structured way. For example, when we add a Config.in.host for a package, we also (perhaps in a separate commit) add the select statements for it in all packages that depend on it.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Also note that the idea was to make these Config.in.host options blind (i.e. promptless).
Make sense if the host package exists only to support building another package (that selects and depends on it) but there are other reasons why a host package may be necessary, e.g. I need host-mtools for a post-image script.
Yes, of course, we want *some* host packages to be visible in menuconfig.
Basically, the current situation is:
* Most host packages don't have any Config.in.host options (blind or visible), because they are merely build dependencies of other packages.
* A few host packages do have a visible Config.in.host because they are useful by themselves, and not just as a build dependency of something else: image generation tools, flashing tools, qemu, etc.
The idea we have for the future is:
* All host packages have a Config.in.host option.
* The host packages that are only build dependencies of other packages have a blind Config.in.host option
* The host packages that are useful by themselves continue to have a visible Config.in.host option.
Does that clarify where we want to go ?
Best regards,
Thomas Petazzoni
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com