On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 01:30:49PM +0200, Jonas Gorski wrote: > 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 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@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
