From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:41:26 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] Buildroot defconfig issues In-Reply-To: <20210212092458.165a3ec7@windsurf.home> References: <6025e87c3e3ce_c6a70d4128370@gitlab-sidekiq-catchall-v1-bb68c6455-8rbvh.mail> <20210212091348.75f9cd17@windsurf.home> <582a548d-b9e3-39dc-f234-10a31e0a355d@mind.be> <20210212092458.165a3ec7@windsurf.home> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 12/02/2021 09:24, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 09:17:53 +0100 > Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > >> I propose to just remove this defconfig. We're not really happy with those >> non-minimal defconfigs, right. I think it only makes sense to keep something >> like that if there really is something board-specific in there, which is not the >> case here I think. > > Well, we've got several of these "development" defconfigs for > Atmel/Microchip platforms: > > at91sam9x5ek_dev_defconfig > at91sam9x5ek_mmc_dev_defconfig > atmel_sama5d27_som1_ek_mmc_dev_defconfig > atmel_sama5d2_xplained_mmc_dev_defconfig > atmel_sama5d3_xplained_dev_defconfig > atmel_sama5d3_xplained_mmc_dev_defconfig > atmel_sama5d4_xplained_dev_defconfig > atmel_sama5d4_xplained_mmc_dev_defconfig > microchip_sam9x60ek_mmc_dev_defconfig > microchip_sama5d27_wlsom1_ek_mmc_dev_defconfig > > There was quite some debate back then on whether we wanted them or not > in upstream Buildroot. Microchip has its own BR2_EXTERNAL layer at > https://github.com/linux4sam/buildroot-external-microchip with a bunch > of other defconfigs. > > But Arnout, I thought you were inclined to having "demo" defconfigs in > Buildroot upstream. Have you changed your mind ? "demo", yes. Like qt5we. It's good to have one defconfig which adds qt5we because otherwise that package hardly ever gets tested (it has so many dependencies that it's very unlikely to get built in the autobuilders). Also the other _qt5_ configs make sense, because it can be quite hard to select the correct graphical stuff for a specific board - the qt5 part is not really needed, but it's a nice way of showing something actually working rather than simply building. But the _dev_ things simply select a bunch of packages that are useful for development. It's not at all necessarily the set of tools that any particular developer will actually use, and it's not very helpful for testing some specific package, and there's nothing specific for that platform in it. It's possible that I'm a bit changing my mind here, because I didn't realize that last bit before. And for sure: if such a config is giving us pain (e.g., it doesn't build :-) then rather than spend time on investigating, I'd want to just remove it! Regards, Arnout