From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 21:56:32 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1 of 3] linux: add linux-update-config and linux-update-defconfig targets In-Reply-To: References: <81756817dc47990f5c42.1317151269@localhost6.localdomain6> <20110927224603.02a7e0b1@skate> Message-ID: <20110930215632.31a189f7@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Le Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:08:12 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire a ?crit : > > ?* Whether this configuration update shouldn't be done automatically > > ? when one does "make linux-menuconfig" or "make linux-xconfig". > > ? People have often found strange to loose their configuration changes > > ? in Linux/Busybox/uClibc when they do a make clean. > > Such a feature would be good indeed. But, some remarks: > * hooking it to menuconfig/xconfig wouldn't cover the case where the > .config is manually changed. This different behavior may be confusing > as well. Correct, even though manually changing the .config is a bit of a corner case. > What if we execute the automatic saving just before the build step? > This of course requires to start building; you cannot just change the > config and hope that it is copied automatically. In that last case, a > manual linux-update-config would be necessary. > Is this acceptable? Yes, sounds good. > * previously you raised the point of busybox-update / uclibc-update > potentially overwriting the standard buildroot files. If we do not > want this and we want automatic saving of custom configs, then we need > to be able to differentiate between custom and default configuration > files. > On the other hand, if there are users that purposefully put their > project's configuration in the default files (overwriting them), then > they would not be able to benefit from the automatic saving, and > possibly not from -update-config either. But I'm not sure if we ought > to support such practice... Maybe we can change a bit the selection of the Busybox/uClibc configuration file. We could do something like: [X] Use default Busybox configuration file in which case Busybox would use the default configuration file integrated in Buildroot. If this option is disabled: [ ] Use default Busybox configuration file (/some/path/busybox.config) Path to Busybox config file then Buildroot uses the specified configuration file. With this change, busybox-config-update would output an error if the default config file is used and would work properly if a specific config file is given. What do you think? Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com