From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:30:58 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] BR2_PACKAGE_BUSYBOX_CONFIG and Atmel targets In-Reply-To: <48F2EF1B.70102@control.lth.se> References: <48F1CE78.3040908@control.lth.se> <20081013081228.14f1e6c7@hcegtvedt> <48F2EF1B.70102@control.lth.se> Message-ID: <20081013073057.GA9429@mx.loc> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 08:47:55AM +0200, Anders Blomdell wrote: >Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote: >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:16:24 +0200 >> Anders Blomdell wrote: >> >>> in target/device/Atmel/atngw100/Makefile.in there is a line >>> >>> BR2_PACKAGE_BUSYBOX_CONFIG:=$(BOARD_PATH)/busybox-1.9.1.config >>> >>> unfortunately this makes it impossible to change busybox config >>> (primarily I want to turn off telnet) to a custom version. What is >>> the correct way to handle this? >>> >> >> Well, naming indicates that you will need to add a >> busybox-.config file. >And change the Makfile.in as well, IMHO that is the wrong path to follow. >> >> It is probably a good idea to scrap the part as well, just >> have a generic busybox.config file. Kconfig options should not change >> that often, and user will be asked to answer yes/no to new features >> most times. >Is there any good reason at all to unconditionally ignore the busybox >config choosen by the user (many of the Atmel boards and a few other >does this)? Would a patch that just removes all these unconditional >configurations be accepted, or is there any deep reason for not allowing >Atmel users choose their own busybox configuration (and in the default >case choose the buildroot default instead of a board specific one)? Did you read docs/README and try what's documented there (see "finegrained")?