From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 23:56:54 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] uboot: fix custom patch dir legacy handling In-Reply-To: References: <1482203412-5361-1-git-send-email-danomimanchego123@gmail.com> <87tw9z7yw6.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <06d55d32-6d74-0daa-8770-5b7e56deab81@mind.be> <871sx271oc.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <87wpeu5l6a.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20161220230014.030d3f0d@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20161220235654.54e8c810@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:55:41 -0500, Danomi Manchego wrote: > Understood. It's just that using a custom path for boot loaders and > the kernel is the norm for us, not an exception. In fact, I've never > been on a project where we were able to use a main line kernel or > uboot. Sometimes, we'll go through the exercise of making patches > against an initial state of a vendor's git repo, but many of out > project leaders prefer to just source control everything locally. > Under those circumstances, it's nicer to have the local path in the > defconfig than in a secondary local.mk or in the .mk file itself. If your U-Boot / Linux kernel source code is under version control, why don't you ask Buildroot to pull it from your Git/SVN/Mercurial/whatever repository ? Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com