From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 21:55:46 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v5 06/13] configs: add autobuild toolchain defconfigs In-Reply-To: <20170406181854.5242-6-arnout@mind.be> References: <20170406181854.5242-6-arnout@mind.be> Message-ID: <20170406215546.6e0b393d@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 Thu, 6 Apr 2017 20:18:46 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) wrote: > Note: I choose to name them xxx_defconfig and put them under to configs > directory so they can be used directly as a quick way to set up a build > with an external toolchain. However, neither test-pkg nor autobuild-run > will use them as _defconfig, so we could just as well call them *.config > and put them under e.g. support/autobuild-toolchains. Let me know what > you think. It's not a fully clear-cut opinion, but I believe I have a preference for having those in support// rather than as official defconfigs. I don't think it makes much sense to advertise them as defconfigs. Those base configurations are very specialized, some of them use completely stupid toolchain configurations (ARM no thread, really?) that only exist for the sake of testing various combinations of toolchain features. So making those visible to random users along with real defconfigs for boards doesn't seem like a good idea. Plus it avoids the need to support defconfigs in subfolders (even though I guess you went through great lengths to workaround make stupidity about how patterns without slashes are handled), and the big question of your last RFC patch on how to display them in "list-defconfigs". Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com