| Message ID | e3506e59aa801227a1e47ccace2ef664fdaf0eca.1447713615.git.yann.morin.1998@free.fr |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
Yann, On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 23:47:00 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > Virtual packages really have nothing to save for legal-info, so we just > ignore them. > > Following patches will always extract-and-aptch non-ignored packages, so > we would potentially see spurious "extracting" and "patching" messages > on the console, which would be a bit strange. Ignoring virtual packages > will get us a cleaner log. aptch -> patch. And the extract-and-patch can be just "extract and patch". It's also not really clear what you mean by "Following patches will always extract and patch non-ignored packages". Aren't we already doing that for legal-info ? (Note: I haven't looked at the following patches yet, things might get clearer when I'll reach the next patches, but it seems weird to not understand a commit log if you haven't read the next patches). Otherwise, I'm fine with the change, as soon as we reach an agreement on PATCH 04/21. Thanks, Thomas
On 2015-11-17 12:25 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly: > Yann, > > On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 23:47:00 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > > Virtual packages really have nothing to save for legal-info, so we just > > ignore them. > > > > > Following patches will always extract-and-aptch non-ignored packages, so > > we would potentially see spurious "extracting" and "patching" messages > > on the console, which would be a bit strange. Ignoring virtual packages > > will get us a cleaner log. > > aptch -> patch. And the extract-and-patch can be just "extract and > patch". Damn, I missed fixing that (I used it elsewhere and then fixed those, missed that one). > It's also not really clear what you mean by "Following patches will > always extract and patch non-ignored packages". Aren't we already doing > that for legal-info ? (Note: I haven't looked at the following patches > yet, things might get clearer when I'll reach the next patches, but it > seems weird to not understand a commit log if you haven't read the next > patches). No, we only extract them if they define a non-empty _LICENSE_FILES. > Otherwise, I'm fine with the change, as soon as we reach an agreement > on PATCH 04/21. Ack. Two options, then: - keep YES/NO, add IGNORE (or NOTHING) - replace YES/NO with ALL, METADATA, NOTHING (and keep YES/NO for backward compatibility to ALL/METADATA). (or a third naming, whatever...) Regards, Yann E. MORIN.
diff --git a/package/pkg-virtual.mk b/package/pkg-virtual.mk index 9c68b51..1471b95 100644 --- a/package/pkg-virtual.mk +++ b/package/pkg-virtual.mk @@ -57,6 +57,8 @@ endif # Add dependency against the provider $(2)_DEPENDENCIES += $$(call qstrip,$$(BR2_PACKAGE_PROVIDES_$(2))) +$(2)_REDISTRIBUTE = IGNORE + # Call the generic package infrastructure to generate the necessary # make targets $(call inner-generic-package,$(1),$(2),$(3),$(4))
Virtual packages really have nothing to save for legal-info, so we just ignore them. Following patches will always extract-and-aptch non-ignored packages, so we would potentially see spurious "extracting" and "patching" messages on the console, which would be a bit strange. Ignoring virtual packages will get us a cleaner log. Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> --- package/pkg-virtual.mk | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)