diff mbox

qt5base: fix misspelling of "directfb"

Message ID 20161018020957.2662-1-kraai@ftbfs.org
State Superseded
Headers show

Commit Message

Matt Kraai Oct. 18, 2016, 2:09 a.m. UTC 
---
 package/qt5/qt5base/Config.in | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Thomas Petazzoni Oct. 18, 2016, 9:45 a.m. UTC | #1 
Hello,

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 19:09:56 -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:

> -comment "directfb backend if directb is enabled"
> +comment "directfb backend if directfb is enabled"
>  	depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_DIRECTFB

Thanks, but this sentence in fact doesn't make a lot of sense. It
should be something like:

	directfb backend needs directfb to be enabled

Or perhaps no comment at all because it's completely obvious that to
use DirectFB functionality, you need DirectFB.

Thomas
Matt Kraai Oct. 18, 2016, 1:47 p.m. UTC | #2 
Hi,

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:56AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 19:09:56 -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
> 
> > -comment "directfb backend if directb is enabled"
> > +comment "directfb backend if directfb is enabled"
> >  	depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_DIRECTFB
> 
> Thanks, but this sentence in fact doesn't make a lot of sense. It
> should be something like:
> 
> 	directfb backend needs directfb to be enabled
> 
> Or perhaps no comment at all because it's completely obvious that to
> use DirectFB functionality, you need DirectFB.

If the comment is removed, then there is no indication that a directfb
backend is available if directfb is disabled.  That's inconsistent
with the handling of the other backends, which have the following
comments if they're not available:

* X.org XCB backend available if X.org is enabled
* eglfs backend available if OpenGL and EGL are enabled

Should I still remove the comment?  Or make the message consistent
with the other backends (i.e., "directfb backend available if directfb
is enabled")?
Thomas Petazzoni Oct. 18, 2016, 1:51 p.m. UTC | #3 
Hello,

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 06:47:54 -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:

> If the comment is removed, then there is no indication that a directfb
> backend is available if directfb is disabled.  That's inconsistent
> with the handling of the other backends, which have the following
> comments if they're not available:
> 
> * X.org XCB backend available if X.org is enabled
> * eglfs backend available if OpenGL and EGL are enabled

Indeed.

> Should I still remove the comment?  Or make the message consistent
> with the other backends (i.e., "directfb backend available if directfb
> is enabled")?

Let's keep the comment, just adjusted.

Thanks a lot!

Thomas
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/package/qt5/qt5base/Config.in b/package/qt5/qt5base/Config.in
index 64a7f65..6933523 100644
--- a/package/qt5/qt5base/Config.in
+++ b/package/qt5/qt5base/Config.in
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@  config BR2_PACKAGE_QT5BASE_DIRECTFB
 	bool "directfb support"
 	depends on BR2_PACKAGE_DIRECTFB
 
-comment "directfb backend if directb is enabled"
+comment "directfb backend if directfb is enabled"
 	depends on !BR2_PACKAGE_DIRECTFB
 
 config BR2_PACKAGE_QT5BASE_XCB