From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anders Blomdell Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:47:55 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] BR2_PACKAGE_BUSYBOX_CONFIG and Atmel targets In-Reply-To: <20081013081228.14f1e6c7@hcegtvedt> References: <48F1CE78.3040908@control.lth.se> <20081013081228.14f1e6c7@hcegtvedt> Message-ID: <48F2EF1B.70102@control.lth.se> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote: > On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:16:24 +0200 > Anders Blomdell wrote: > >> in target/device/Atmel/atngw100/Makefile.in there is a line >> >> BR2_PACKAGE_BUSYBOX_CONFIG:=$(BOARD_PATH)/busybox-1.9.1.config >> >> unfortunately this makes it impossible to change busybox config >> (primarily I want to turn off telnet) to a custom version. What is >> the correct way to handle this? >> > > Well, naming indicates that you will need to add a > busybox-.config file. And change the Makfile.in as well, IMHO that is the wrong path to follow. > > It is probably a good idea to scrap the part as well, just > have a generic busybox.config file. Kconfig options should not change > that often, and user will be asked to answer yes/no to new features > most times. Is there any good reason at all to unconditionally ignore the busybox config choosen by the user (many of the Atmel boards and a few other does this)? Would a patch that just removes all these unconditional configurations be accepted, or is there any deep reason for not allowing Atmel users choose their own busybox configuration (and in the default case choose the buildroot default instead of a board specific one)? Regards Anders Blomdell