[Buildroot] [PATCH] target skeleton definition

Dmytro Milinevskyy milinevskyy at gmail.com
Tue Jun 8 19:54:31 UTC 2010


Thomas, what should be done w/ target that depend on busybox skeleton?

-- Dima

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Dmytro Milinevskyy
<milinevskyy at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thomas, I will rework the patch according to your suggestions.
> Should targets that depend on busybox skeleton use default one?
>
> -- Dima
>
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Thomas Petazzoni
> <thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 23:17:59 +0200
>> Peter Korsgaard <jacmet at uclibc.org> wrote:
>>
>>>  Thomas> Personaly, I'd prefer if we could get rid of the "busybox"
>>>  Thomas> skeleton altogether. I think Peter Korsgaard agreed with
>>>  Thomas> this decision, but I'll let him restate his preference here.
>>>
>>> Yes, I think now would be a good moment to cleanup this stuff.
>>
>> So, Dmytro, could you update your patch to remove the busybox skeleton,
>> and just put the default skeleton in fs/skeleton ?
>>
>> You could indeed split it in two patches:
>>
>>  * One doing the skeleton move
>>
>>  * One adding the option to configure the skeleton
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Thomas
>> --
>> Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
>> Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
>> development, consulting, training and support.
>> http://free-electrons.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> buildroot mailing list
>> buildroot at busybox.net
>> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
>>
>


More information about the buildroot mailing list