From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 10:20:12 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 0 of 5 RFC] uclibc/busybox: fix handling of configuration file In-Reply-To: References: <53AA66F5.3090706@mind.be> Message-ID: <20140629102012.33364d0e@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Thomas De Schampheleire, On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 10:13:28 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > > This sounds like a very interesting idea, I'll explore it further in > > the context of this patch series. > > I'm working on this now, but I wonder which is the right approach wrt > the organization of the patch series: > > - first line up linux, busybox, uclibc in the way they handle the > kconfig stuff, then extract this to a kconfig-package framework > - or first introduce a kconfig-package framework with the 'right' > handling, then convert each of linux, busybox, uclibc in subsequent > patches? I'd say it doesn't matter that much. Maybe the first one allows more easily to see the functional changes that are made, by really I don't think it matter. At least on my end, I'd be happy with any of those two solutions. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com