[Buildroot] Any way to override .config settings?

Steve Calfee stevecalfee at gmail.com
Thu Dec 20 01:00:10 UTC 2012

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Charles Manning <cdhmanning at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Steve Calfee <stevecalfee at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout at mind.be> wrote:
>>> On 20/12/12 01:13, Charles Manning wrote:
>>>>>> 1) Is there a built in mechanism in buildroot to include extra symbols
>>>>>> and override those in .config?
>>>>>   Yes, the package override file: BR2_PACKAGE_OVERRIDE_FILE, defaults to
>>>>> $(TOPDIR)/local.mk. I use this to include a bunch of project-specific .mk
>>>>> files that add packages without requiring a Config.in.
>>>> In a separate thread to this, I submitted a patch that follows the
>>>> package overriding idea to override the config
>>>  Since it does exactly the same as BR2_PACKAGE_OVERRIDE_FILE, I don't see
>>> the point... Unless you want to start overriding toolchain configs.
>>>  Actually, I don't see much point to override the .config - why not just
>>> save a different .config?
>> I agree. From a maintenance point of view, having one file (.config or
>> defconfig) that describes how something is built is much nicer than
>> having a .config and various makefiles that hack at it.
> Simplicity is pretty much my goal here too and proliferating
> defconfigs for minor tweaks seems a nasty way to tackle the issue.
> Some examples of where this might make sense:
> .config defines the project and individual developers want to apply
> tweaks to that.
> eg.1) I sometimes have problems with my svn client and only managed to
> get it working properly by forcing --username and --password. That is
> not something I want to put in a defconfig.
> eg2) Keeping everything the same, except changing revisions.
> eg3) Overriding sources for stuff while
Hi Charles,

Please keep the list in CC, others may have an opinion too.

I don't know how to deal with problems with the svn. All other things
can be handled with local custom configs. Git branches work
wonderfully for such things.

>> Also, the buildroot make system is a mechanism that can easily be
>> extended by an external script or makefile. We should resist the
>> temptation to complicate the buildroot system just to fit a subset of
>> people's strange build desires. Keeping it simple and clean and
>> limiting the number of targets is good.
> Sorry... How is that logically consistent? A few lines back you say
> "just make more defconfigs". Now you say "limit the number of
> targets"...
> My proposed addition of config overriding  .config allows simple
> tweaking without generating more defconfigs. Surely that is a good
> thing?

Maybe, but my objection is to adding makefile targets. That affects
everyone, the docs etc. You having several configs that completely
describe your build configuration is merely something that seems
beneficial to me, maybe not you. I believe limiting the makefile
targets is a good thing, and having a few, standard ways to externally
configure your build is good enough.

Regards, Steve

More information about the buildroot mailing list