From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20])
	by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>) id 1T3Nad-00018X-TL
	for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org;
	Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:44:04 +0200
Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18])
	by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Aug 2012 01:32:00 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,796,1336374000"; d="scan'208";a="182769116"
Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.121.92])
	by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Aug 2012 01:32:00 -0700
From: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:31:59 +0100
Message-ID: <1754598.kxQRJyreg5@helios>
Organization: Intel Corporation
User-Agent: KMail/4.9 (Linux/3.2.0-29-generic-pae; KDE/4.9.0; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <1345451321.24626.77.camel@x121e.pbcl.net>
References: <1345448771-4656-1-git-send-email-radu.moisan@intel.com>
	<8627395.gapg0V4nHB@helios>
	<1345451321.24626.77.camel@x121e.pbcl.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] busybox: Upgrade to upstream 1.20.2
X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
	<openembedded-core.lists.openembedded.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/openembedded-core>,
	<mailto:openembedded-core-request@lists.openembedded.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-core>
List-Post: <mailto:openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openembedded-core-request@lists.openembedded.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core>,
	<mailto:openembedded-core-request@lists.openembedded.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:44:04 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Monday 20 August 2012 09:28:41 Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 09:25 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > On Monday 20 August 2012 09:18:17 Phil Blundell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 10:46 +0300, Radu Moisan wrote:
> > > > @@ -97,6 +97,8 @@ do_prepare_config () {
> > > > 
> > > >  		< ${WORKDIR}/defconfig > ${S}/.config
> > > >  	
> > > >  	sed -i -e '/CONFIG_STATIC/d' .config
> > > >  	echo "# CONFIG_STATIC is not set" >> .config
> > > > 
> > > > +	sed -i -e '/CONFIG_LSOF/d' .config
> > > > +	echo "# CONFIG_LSOF is not set" >> .config
> > > > 
> > > >  	for i in 'CROSS' 'DISTRO FEATURES'; do echo "### $i"; done >> \
> > > >  	
> > > >  		${S}/.config
> > > >  	
> > > >  	sed -i -e '${configmangle}' ${S}/.config
> > > 
> > > Why is this desirable?
> > 
> > Well, the more appropriate question would be: could we not just update the
> > defconfig and then make that change to it directly?
> > 
> > (In case it isn't clear - lsof is being disabled because it was not
> > enabled in the previous 1.19.4 version.)
> 
> Ah, I see.  In that case, yes, just updating the defconfig is the right
> thing to do.  The patch above will, if I am understanding it correctly,
> make it impossible (or at least quite hard) for any other layer to turn
> CONFIG_LSOF back on.

Good point, that would be undesirable.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre