Ralph Passgang dixit:
>PKG_BROKEN would be _cooler_ than disabling it in package/Config.in. It also
>helps to have all package related information in one place.
Yes, it would. But we cannot do it, unless we generate package/Config.in
from… hm, we _will_ generate package/foo/Config.in from info.nfo - if it's
broken, it'll just be empty.
>But maybe we can also use the style of the normal linux kernel. The linux
>kernel has an config option to hide all features that are "known to be
>broken". If we would do so, the default should of course be to hide all
>broken packages and features, but it would make it easy for developers to
>say: "I don't care, give me all packages/features that are available, even if
>they are broken" without to edit any Config.in or Makefile at all.
No. Too many knobs.
>Maybe we could also call it "not tested or known to be broken" and mark
No. Everything is “not tested” by default. Get real. Too many knobs.
>Hmmm, PKG_NOTTESTED sounds nice .)
If we add that, we'll sound less professional. Better having it silently.
[ dash-ver stuff ]
>By thinking of this, the only problem I see is that local changes are not
>catched by this.
Local changes is something developers do. Developers are expected
to be able to 'make package=foo clean' first.
bye,
//mirabile
--
"Using Lynx is like wearing a really good pair of shades: cuts out
the glare and harmful UV (ultra-vanity), and you feel so-o-o COOL."
-- Henry Nelson, March 1999
_______________________________________________
freewrt-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.freewrt.org/lists/listinfo/freewrt-developers
