From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hamish Moffatt Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:47:11 +1100 Subject: [Buildroot] svn commit: trunk/buildroot/target/linux In-Reply-To: <1233272247.4147.65.camel@elrond.atmel.com> References: <20090127125650.GA18250@cloud.net.au> <20090129230904.GA13929@cloud.net.au> <1233272247.4147.65.camel@elrond.atmel.com> Message-ID: <20090129234711.GA15229@cloud.net.au> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:37:27AM +0100, Ulf Samuelsson wrote: > fre 2009-01-30 klockan 10:09 +1100 skrev Hamish Moffatt: > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 03:33:08PM +0100, Ulf Samuelsson wrote: > > >> The current logic of trying xconfig then menuconfig is very ugly - does > > >> it allow you to abort xconfig without falling back? > > > > > > If you could abort the xconfig without running menuconfig, > > > then you would not have a config file and the build would abort. > > > What is the sense of that? > > > > You could have an exising config, start editing then change your mind. > > You don't want menuconfig to launch in that case. > > If you have an existing config, then buildroot will copy that > to the linux directory, and neither menuconfig or xconfig > will be launched. > > It is launched if buildroot does not find a suitable config. > > If you select to do make menuconfig, it will not launch xconfig. > > If you already have a .config, then you should do make linux-config > or similar. OK, I misunderstood that this only affects the case where you don't have a .config. I still think you might want to abort xconfig and not expect it to launch menuconfig though. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB