On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Luka Perkov <l...@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 <l...@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 <l...@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 <l...@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@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
