use Kconfig instead of config.in
Mike Frysinger
vapier at gentoo.org
Tue May 12 01:07:22 UTC 2009
On Monday 11 May 2009 20:12:56 Thomas Chou wrote:
> On 05/12/2009 12:51 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > yes we would ... the config.in-to-kconfig.sh script isnt just a simple
> > rename. it has to change the option names in the process so that it can
> > be included into the uclinux-dist without clashing with other names.
>
> Great! Then we will be able to set busybox as submodule in the same way as
> linux-2.6.x under uclinux-dist.
if you want to treat user/busybox/ specially like linux-2.6.x/ in that it gets
its own special menuconfig and dedicated .config file, then yes, that should
work fine. i dont personally mind having to manually run the config.in-to-
kconfig.sh script while adding a new busybox version though, and having one
menuconfig system for users to look at makes the system less confusing. as it
stands, having three (top level board selection, kernel configuration, and
userspace configuration) is pretty bad.
might be worth bringing up on the kconfig lists for a real solution ... one
menuconfig with multiple outputs and segregation of options.
-mike
More information about the busybox
mailing list