Quentin Schulz <quentin.sch...@cherry.de> schrieb am Fr., 18. Apr. 2025, 16:33:
> Hi Heinrich, > > On 4/18/25 4:17 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > Quentin Schulz <quentin.sch...@cherry.de> schrieb am Fr., 18. Apr. 2025, > > 15:52: > > > >> Hi Simon, > >> > >> On 4/18/25 1:39 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > >>> Hi Quentin, > >>> > >>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 at 05:27, Quentin Schulz <quentin.sch...@cherry.de > > > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Heinrich, > >>>> > >>>> On 4/17/25 12:40 AM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > >>>>> Currently we are no able to build with configuration fragments in our > >> CI. > >>>>> With this patch buildman gets a new argument --fragments for passing > a > >>>>> comma separated list of configuration fragments to add to the board > >>>>> defconfigs, e.g. > >>>>> > >>>>> tools/buildman/buildman \ > >>>>> -o build \ > >>>>> -k qemu-riscv64_smode \ > >>>>> --fragments acpi.config > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> What about using: > >>>> > >>>> --fragment acpi.config --fragment fragment2.config > >> > > > > Why should we type so much? > > > > --fragments fragment1.config,fragment2.config is shorter. > > > > > > What was suggested by Simon after is: > > --fragment acpi --fragment fragment2 > > vs > > --fragments acpi.config,fragment2.config > > Shorter :) (until we have more fragments, and then the added --fragment > is an issue :) > > But also because I like to use argparse features instead of reinventing > the wheel, but that's also not a big issue :) > > >>> Another idea would be to also allow specifying the fragment name > >>> without the '.config' suffix. Less to type. > >>> > > > > > > We can follow all those ideas in future patches. But first let us see the > > No, this is user interface, we want to change it as little as possible. > I don't think it makes sense to support --fragments > fragment.config,fragment2.config now to then switch to --fragment > fragment --fragment fragment2 later on, if that's what we want. > > Cheers, > Quentin Why do want to type more? I don't. Best regards Heinrich >
