From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 23:00:46 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] Declare SED Makefile instead of package/Makefile.in so it exists globally. In-Reply-To: <56D1A1E6.7020601@mind.be> (Arnout Vandecappelle's message of "Sat, 27 Feb 2016 14:17:26 +0100") References: <20160216161010.779981bb@free-electrons.com> <1455635726-22028-1-git-send-email-alvaro.gamez@hazent.com> <20160216213554.60f53246@free-electrons.com> <56C3A41B.7070200@mind.be> <20160217094715.19c767b3@free-electrons.com> <56D1A1E6.7020601@mind.be> Message-ID: <87y4a5rey9.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, >> Arnout, what do you think? In addition, I think it would be good t In >> addition, I think it would be good to In addition, I think it would >> be good to o > I agree we should go for (1). Yes, I also think this is the sanest / simplest thing to do. > However, this doesn't completely stop the 'make menuconfig savedefconfig': once > a .config file exists, you can still do that. But it could have some funky side > effects (not that I can think of any right away, but it feels a bit iffy). So I > think it would be good to enforce that all the noconfig_targets can only be > called on their own on the command line. This would block completely silly > things like 'make menuconfig defconfig' (it would also block potentially valid > things like 'make foo_defconfig menuconfig', but I think adding an extra '&& > make' in the middle of that is not so painful). No, that seems ok (as long as it is clear from the error message that you need to do so). -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard