On 7/3/16 00:26, Luke McKee wrote: > For some further background... > > the original procd zram patch uses ext2 :) > > https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/19586#comment:9 > https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2014-December/029587.html > > It shows you what happens when someone enables this option from make > menuconfig. > There needs to be some dependency testing. I suggest apply the patch > and make it dependent on busybox mkfs.ext2 only. > Leave mkfs.ext4 e2fsprogs in /usr/sbin and let users choose which they > want from a fully qualified path in scripts.
Is there a reason to use full path specification? Why can't mkfs.ext{2|4} be called and whichever is found first in PATH gets executed? In this case only one of e2fsprogs and busybox implementations should be required. Let busybox be default, but please leave an option to use full e2fsprogs and disable mkfs.ext* in busybox. Something like DEPENDS:= ... +!BUSYBOX_CONFIG_MKFS_EXT2:e2fsprogs -- Best regards, Maxim Storchak mailto:m.storc...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel