From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 23:11:27 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/3] iptables: enable basic kernel options In-Reply-To: <20141028191014.64709e21@free-electrons.com> References: <1413925852-12765-1-git-send-email-gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> <1413925852-12765-2-git-send-email-gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> <20141028190236.7b8ed9be@free-electrons.com> <544FDACB.1050508@zacarias.com.ar> <20141028191014.64709e21@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <5450148F.5000906@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 28/10/14 19:10, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Dear Gustavo Zacarias, > > On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:04:59 -0300, Gustavo Zacarias wrote: >> On 10/28/2014 03:02 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: >> >>> For this one, I don't know. Back some time ago, Peter said that his >>> preference was to not enforce too much stuff in terms of kernel >>> configuration options in linux/linux.mk. I think the idea is that it's >>> something that can quickly become very complicated if you want to >>> handle all the kernel config options that all packages might need. It's >>> also being forced without the user being capable of doing anything >>> against that: those KCONFIG_ENABLE_OPT calls are done even if the user >>> passes a custom configuration file. >>> >>> But back at the time, we only had the CONFIG_AEABI option being >>> handled. Now it's true we already have ktap, systemd, smack being >>> handled, and many other things related to appended DTB, initramfs, and >>> more. So it seems like the iptables/xtables-addons proposal from >>> Gustavo are not really creating a precedent. >>> >>> Peter, what is your position on this? >> >> Unfortunately it's not optional for xtables-addons, it needs the >> iptables bits for the xtables bits in the other patch. >> We could just get them together or ditch the package since it will >> result in a build failure. > > As said on IRC, if those options are needed at build time for > xtables-addons, it makes a very good case for having them. I completely agree with that reasoning. Actually, I think it's just the ktap and smack modifications that are really controversial. The others are either required for building, or they are system configuration options and for those it's logical to propagate to the kernel config. Regards, Arnout > > Peter, OK ? > > Thomas > -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F