[Buildroot] [PATCH 01/10] New, simpler, infrastructure for building the Linux kernel
Peter Korsgaard
jacmet at uclibc.org
Sun Jun 20 17:51:23 UTC 2010
>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com> writes:
Hi,
>> Well, "stable" has different meanings to different people. When I think
>> of stable in regard to kernels, I think of the stable at kernel.org
>> releases (E.G. 2.6.x.y).
Thomas> Ah, I see. For me, 2.6.x versions are also stable versions, by
Thomas> oppposition with -rc versions. But ok, I've changed this.
Ok - Notice that there isn't anything stopping people from using a -rc
version (and there shouldn't be) - E.G.
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/linux-2.6.35-rc3.tar.bz2
>> The point is that it isn't consistent. We don't do this for
>> uclibc/busybox, and you don't do it for defconfigs in the kernel tree
>> (which often are also slightly outdated).
Thomas> Ok, I got rid of it.
Thanks.
>> Does this mean that the existing advanced linux support is broken on
>> ARM/uImage when using a modular kernel? - There it looks like it just
>> calls 'make uImage'. I always use a nonmodular kernel, so I never
>> noticed.
Thomas> The current advanced thing does "make modules ; make modules_install"
Thomas> when CONFIG_MODULES is enabled.
Ok, that makes sense.
Thomas> make uImage
Thomas> make modules
>>
>> Probably better to do make; make <format> (where format is uImage/zImage/bzImage/..)
Thomas> Isn't this what I'm doing already ?
No, you were doing:
+# Compilation
+$(LINUX26_DIR)/.stamp_compiled: $(LINUX26_DIR)/.stamp_configured
+ @$(call MESSAGE,"Compiling kernel")
+ $(MAKE) $(LINUX26_MAKE_FLAGS) -C $(@D)
+ifeq ($(BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_UIMAGE),y)
+ $(MAKE) $(LINUX26_MAKE_FLAGS) -C $(@D) uImage
+endif
+ $(Q)touch $@
E.G. just make (followed by make uImage if uImage is selected).
I guess we should do:
make <format>
if modules:
make modules
make modules-install
--
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
More information about the buildroot
mailing list