From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxime Ripard Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:30:15 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] Rework of the init system In-Reply-To: <4FE174BC.8090904@mind.be> References: <1cbed22cb8b47ae0241f8ab981acb1662eca1f46.1338285613.git.maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> <4FCD449E.9030700@mind.be> <4FDEE7B2.1060502@free-electrons.com> <4FE174BC.8090904@mind.be> Message-ID: <4FE1C257.1020500@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Arnout, Le 20/06/2012 08:59, Arnout Vandecappelle a ?crit : > On 06/18/12 10:32, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>>> >> +choice >>>> >> + prompt "Init system" >>>> >> + default BR2_INIT_BUSYBOX >>>> >> + >>>> >> +config BR2_INIT_BUSYBOX >>>> >> + bool "Busybox" >>>> >> + select BR2_PACKAGE_BUSYBOX >>> > >>> > Ideally, the busybox.mk should make sure init is selected in the >>> > busybox config >>> > if this option is chosen. >> >> I actually did so at first, and you asked me back then to remove it:) >> (http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2011-December/048541.html) > > You misunderstood my comment back then: I'm against _disabling_ the > busybox init. The _enable_ should be kept. Yes, that's what I understood a bit later. This is what is implemented in the third version of the pull request. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com