[Buildroot] [PATCH] smbnetfs: new package 0.5.3a
Andrew Ruder
andrew.ruder at elecsyscorp.com
Tue Dec 3 13:30:43 UTC 2013
Summary: I apologize for the shoddiness of this and my other patch and
I will take the info you've given me here and make much better v2's :).
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 09:47:01AM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> We now normally wants patches to carry a sequence number, even if there
> is only one patch. So something like:
>
> smbnetfs-01-compile-with-uclibc.patch
Ok, can do for v2.
> Indentation of the help text is wrong. It should be one tab + two
> spaces.
I'll fix that for v2.
> I'm not sure here if we want to depend on Samba, or select Samba.
> Usually, we prefer "select" so that things are transparent for the
> user. However, when the thing being selected is "big", and fairly
> obvious for the user (like the Python interpreter being needed to build
> a Python module), we use depends on. I'm not sure which choice to make
> here.
Yes, I had made the decision that samba was "intrusive" enough to
require explicit selection. I figured since it required something
outside of the Libraries section, I would make the user explicitely add
it.
> However, what is sure is that you forgot to inherit the toolchain
> dependencies of libfuse: they should be added.
Ah, I am a little unfamiliar with the intricacies of Kconfig and didn't
realize I needed to explicitely do that. Will take care of it in v2.
> All patches should have a description + Signed-off-by. Also, it would
> be good if you could submit that patch upstream, so that it gets
> integrated in a future release.
OK, fair enough - can do on both counts.
> No SMBNETFS_DEPENDENCIES to ensure libfuse, libiconv and samba are
> built before smbnetfs?
>
> Also, we now request all new packages to have SMBNETFS_LICENSE and
> SMBNETFS_LICENSE_FILES.
v2 and v2.
More information about the buildroot
mailing list