Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH] package/systemd: remove several Kernel config options

From: Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot <buildroot@buildroot.org>
To: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
Cc: Norbert Lange <nolange79@gmail.com>,
	buildroot@buildroot.org, Sen Hastings <sen@hastings.org>,
	Marcus Hoffmann <buildroot@bubu1.eu>
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH] package/systemd: remove several Kernel config options
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2026 10:39:57 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260106103957.4e655da2@windsurf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADvTj4r8prXxRJT1h6Mf-XjbDzq0YmUeYZL++gxGG0dHwSdeKA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello James,

On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 15:30:01 -0700
James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com> wrote:

> IMO we should generally default to enabling the recommended options
> as there are often good reasons for having those enabled.

I'm afraid this is not Buildroot's policy. Buildroot's policy is more
about minimalism. We want to enable the reasonably minimum set of
things needed for things to work, but not enable everything for every
possible use-case. This is why all packages are built with all optional
features disabled by default.

> In general I think we tend to default to enabling recommended options
> from packages unless there is a good reason not to in most cases
> already.

Nope, this is not what we should tend to. This statement goes
completely backwards with the 20+ years of Buildroot's history and
"philosophy".

> Also many packages include systemd unit files and it would often
> be difficult to track which kernel features those unit files depend
> on as most packages are likely to assume the system has any
> recommended kernel options enabled.

But with that reasoning, you could also be "but Qt applications can use
every possible feature in Qt, so when we build Qt, we should build
every single Qt module that exists on earth".

So no, we're not going to go down this route. Our users like Buildroot
minimalism, and we want to keep it that way. Of course, there's a
balance to find, as we want find to reasonably work fine out out the
box, but the right balance is not "enabling everything that might
potentially be needed".

Norbert: as I've stated in a previous e-mail, I'm fine with merging a
patch reducing the number of kernel options forcefully enabled by
systemd.mk. However, I'd like:

1. Our systemd unit tests to still work with this more minimal set of
   options

2. This more minimal set of options to be based on good reasoning, and
   that reasoning should be documented in systemd.mk.

Could you cook a patch in that direction? Please make sure to Cc me on
the patch.

Thanks a lot!

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering and training
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot