From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=89tienne_Ph=C3=A9lip?= Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:44:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Buildroot] [RFC 4/4] board/acmesystems/aria-g25: set BR2_GENIMAGE_CFG_FILES In-Reply-To: <20170405181424.1d69fee5@free-electrons.com> References: <20170329145120.11863-1-etienne.phelip@savoirfairelinux.com> <20170401155116.66464885@free-electrons.com> <8760ilvozx.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <2ce8812c-d95e-bd4a-9cde-f02ab8e3ca60@mind.be> <87wpazuaa1.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <02a1a330-c947-2a64-29bb-88f6ac7d9c9f@mind.be> <20170405181424.1d69fee5@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <674007428.52191.1491831872252.JavaMail.zimbra@savoirfairelinux.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Good morning everyone, ----- Le 5 Avr 17, ? 12:14, Thomas Petazzoni thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com a ?crit : > Hello, > > On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 17:02:36 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > >> Combined with the other discussion in this thread, long-term I see us evolving >> towards: >> >> - deprecate some of the finer-grain fs tuning options we have now; >> - always using genimage to generate the target filesystems; >> - position our fs targets more as a 'quick fix' solution than for production; >> - make host-e2fsprogs etc. blind options again. > > To be honest, I am not sure I share this long-term view. I like the way > things are done today, very modular: we can generate just a filesystem > image, optionally use genimage afterwards, etc. So the "always using > genimage to generate the target filesystem" is not something that I see > as an improvement, for example. To sum things up: - Should I add BR2_GENIMAGE_CFG_FILES or reuse the script in the postimage script - if BR2_GENIMAGE_CFG_FILES is choosen, should it 'depends on' or 'select' BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_GENIMAGE? - should I convert all boards or just the one already in this RFC? Best regards -Etienne