[Buildroot] [PATCH] wireguard: needs 3.10+ kernel
Peter Korsgaard
peter at korsgaard.com
Thu Oct 5 19:46:58 UTC 2017
>>>>> "Arnout" == Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout at mind.be> writes:
> Hi Peter,
> Looks like I don't manage to apply any of your patches today :-)
> On 03-10-17 10:04, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
>> The dependency is actually only for the kernel module (and thus on the
>> runtime kernel version rather than kernel headers), but as we don't know the
>> runtime version in kconfig this will have to do.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard <peter at korsgaard.com>
>> ---
>> package/wireguard/Config.in | 4 ++++
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/package/wireguard/Config.in b/package/wireguard/Config.in
>> index 0321755db3..acce6663ba 100644
>> --- a/package/wireguard/Config.in
>> +++ b/package/wireguard/Config.in
>> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
>> config BR2_PACKAGE_WIREGUARD
>> bool "wireguard"
>> + depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HEADERS_AT_LEAST_3_10
> The kernel module is only built if BR2_LINUX_KERNEL=y, so shouldn't this be
> depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HEADERS_AT_LEAST_3_10 || !BR2_LINUX_KERNEL
That was my first thought as well, but it doesn't make much sense to
build the user space part if the kernel is too old, and I couldn't come
up with a good and clear wording for the comment - So I opted to keep it
simple.
But we can change it if you feel strongly about it. What do you suggest
for the comment text?
> ? And of course in the comment as well.
> In addition, I think you should add the (abbreviated) contents of the commit
> message as a comment here, otherwise it's not at all clear.
Ok, I can do that when applying.
--
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
More information about the buildroot
mailing list