From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 22:00:43 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 0/6] engicam: Add new boards and qt5 In-Reply-To: <8e135a7e-57ad-9e40-f482-45bf97900240@mind.be> References: <1505302931-17387-1-git-send-email-jteki@openedev.com> <8e135a7e-57ad-9e40-f482-45bf97900240@mind.be> Message-ID: <20170927220043.44c0ce36@windsurf.lan> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:43:41 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > I've been wary about applying this patch series because we don't really want > qt5 defconfigs for every board. Especially since we already have a mx6/Etnaviv > defconfig (imx6-sabresd_qt5_defconfig). Initially I even thought you were adding > three different qt5 defconfigs... But fortunately it's just one. > > That said, since you're clearly actively working with this, it's worth > including it. > > Peter, Thomas, opinions? I'm also worried about the growing number of defconfig files, targeting specific use cases. But we don't really have a better way to support such example configurations other by merging more defconfig files, so probably we should do it. As long as we remain aggressive in dropping defconfig files that are not maintained, I believe we can accept more defconfig files. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com