Re: [PATCH v2] busybox: Upgrade to upstream 1.20.2

[Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>]

On Monday 20 August 2012 12:28:24 Radu Moisan wrote:
> On 08/20/2012 11:31 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Any suggestions on how to do that?

Build the new version of busybox once (actually, just running -c configure 
ought to be enough), copy the generated .config over the top of defconfig in the 
metadata, then edit it as desired.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre