From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:28:52 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] 2009.02-rc2 released In-Reply-To: <1232918236.2298.9.camel@elrond.atmel.com> (Ulf Samuelsson's message of "Sun\, 25 Jan 2009 22\:17\:16 +0100") References: <3B941116898CDA489B91563DEF88F4B607F8DB@iwt-server.iwt.local> <1232868757.5311.170.camel@elrond.atmel.com> <87zlhffs9j.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <1232918236.2298.9.camel@elrond.atmel.com> Message-ID: <8763k3dqi3.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Ulf" == Ulf Samuelsson writes: Hi, >> Ulf, several people (myself included) told you to default to menuconfig >> for the kernel stuff, I'm surprised that's still not the case. Ulf> If you want a simple configuration, then you don't use Ulf> the "Advanced configuration for Linux" Ulf> The advanced configuration is a selectable option. Ulf> so is the make menuconfig. Ulf> I prefer default But we're not talking about what YOU prefer. We're talking about what is a sensible default. I think we can all agree that if we have a choice between 2 functionally equivalent options where option 1 always works and the other requires X and QT3 headers, then the decission is easily made. Ulf> I wrote the Advanced configuration so that I can Ulf> work with Linux in a manner that is flexible. Ulf> What should possible be done is to fallback to menuconfig if this fails But why? Just use menuconfig and be done with it. What does xconfig bring you that menuconfig doesn't? Ulf> You want to minimize the options for the user, so I suggest Ulf> that you write a new way of configuring Linux Ulf> so you can do it the way You want. Sigh. Ulf, you really need to learn to work with the rest of the BR developers. Ulf> You have NO business changing the board defaults. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard