From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 21:45:42 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/3] Makefile: export BR2_CONFIG_FILE, pointing to our .config In-Reply-To: <50EC2CE0.2050106@mind.be> (Arnout Vandecappelle's message of "Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:27:44 +0100") References: <201301081351.38832.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> <50EC1A1B.5080804@mind.be> <201301081446.01172.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> <50EC2CE0.2050106@mind.be> Message-ID: <87d2x8x155.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Arnout" == Arnout Vandecappelle writes: Hi, >> I was not referring to our .mk files, but rather to the packages themselves. >> I did a quick survey in 110+ packages, and: >> - kconfig-based packages are not affected: kernel, uClibc, busybox, ct-ng >> - packages using CONFIG_FILE: >> - gdb: gdb/sim/ppc/Makefile.in:CONFIG_FILE = @sim_config@ >> - xbmc: xbmc/lib/freetype/builds/detect.mk:ifndef CONFIG_FILE >> - no package uses DOT_CONFIG >> - openbricks is using DOT_CONFIG, too Arnout> But if you anyway change the name, BUILDROOT_CONFIG is better than Arnout> the non-specific DOT_CONFIG. Arnout> How long can we discuss about a name? :-) Long ;) I like BUILDROOT_CONFIG. It's unique and it's meaning is very obvious. Yann, care to rework the series to use BUILDROOT_CONFIG instead? -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard