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 ) id 1Sgd8T-0006X2-Vo for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:40:58 +0200 Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2012 07:29:57 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,351,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="159022829" Received: from unknown (HELO envy.home) ([10.255.12.119]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2012 07:29:34 -0700 Message-ID: <4FDF3B00.7020809@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 07:28:16 -0700 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120605 Thunderbird/13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Phil Blundell References: <5f472764f7cea2d386b7ee572870fc03769868fc.1339799869.git.dvhart@linux.intel.com> <4FDBBD8D.1050201@linux.intel.com> <1339863500.3339.150.camel@x121e.pbcl.net> <4FDCB690.8090004@linux.intel.com> <1340019305.14857.147.camel@phil-desktop> In-Reply-To: <1340019305.14857.147.camel@phil-desktop> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] busybox: Include setsid and cttyhack in defconfig X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:40:58 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 06/18/2012 04:35 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Sat, 2012-06-16 at 09:38 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: >> With the above goal in mind, can you accept either of my proposed >> patches as an interim solution? Either as an added tiny DISTRO_FEATURE >> or as a simple addition to the defconfig? I do believe these two >> features are useful beyond poky-tiny. > > Well, obviously it isn't my place to accept or reject your patch; one of > the oe-core maintainers would have to make that decision. But, > personally, given a choice between those two options I would prefer the > latter. > > However, I do still think that the best interim approach is just to > provide a suitable, complete defconfig file in whatever layer contains > poky-tiny. This doesn't need to involve splitting poky-tiny into its > own layer, doesn't require any extra tooling in oe-core in the short > term, and doesn't necessarily even need to involve a .bbappend (although > it would probably be easiest if it did). I'm going to look into this approach today. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel