Re: [PATCH 2/5] kernel.bbclass: copy .config instead of moving

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, 2015-12-18 at 14:39 +0200, Markus Lehtonen wrote:
> On 18/12/15 14:22, "Richard Purdie" <
> richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-12-18 at 10:39 +0200, Markus Lehtonen wrote: 
> > >  	if [ "${S}" != "${B}" ] && [ -f "${S}/.config" ] && [ ! 
> > > -f
> > > "${B}/.config" ]; then
> > > -		mv "${S}/.config" "${B}/.config"
> > > +		cp "${S}/.config" "${B}/.config"
> > >  	fi
> > >  
> > >  	# Copy defconfig to .config if .config does not exist.
> > > This
> > > allows
> > 
> > I'm not sure about this, doesn't this trigger the kernel to see
> > ${S} as
> > being 'dirty' and cause other issues when you try and do out of
> > tree
> > builds with it?
> 
> That shouldn't be a problem as the kernel .gitignore ignores .config
> (or '.*' to be more specific). There are other tasks that make
> changes to the kernel source tree, as well, like do_kernel_metadata.
> 
> 
> > It also means we have two copies of "config" around which can end
> > up
> > being different and confuse users no end :(.
> 
> Yes, I must agree. What do you think if ${B}/.config would be a
> symlink to ${S}/.config? I.e.
> +               ln -s "${S}/.config" "${B}/.config"
> 

I think I'd prefer we move the file over the ${B} and then symlink from
${S} since that way if its modified, its mostly likely to be done from
${B} at least by the automated code?

Cheers,

Richard