[Buildroot] [PATCH 6 of 6] uclibc: update-config: preserve freshly configured settings

Thomas De Schampheleire patrickdepinguin at gmail.com
Fri Jul 18 05:29:45 UTC 2014

Hi Arnout, all,

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout at mind.be> wrote:
> On 17/07/14 19:57, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>> Hi Arnout,
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout at mind.be> wrote:
>>> On 15/07/14 20:33, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>>>> Hi Arnout,
>>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout at mind.be> wrote:
>>>>> On 14/07/14 13:50, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>>>>>> In the sequence:
>>>>>> make uclibc-menuconfig
>>>>>> make uclibc-update-config
>>>>>> the freshly configured settings from the menuconfig are lost during the
>>>>>> update-config step. This is because update-config depends on the configure
>>>>>> step, which starts by copying the config file to the build directory.
>>>>>> Instead, stop depending on the configure step from update-config, and
>>>>>> introduce a new stamp file .stamp_config_fixup_done, which applies any
>>>>>> fixups on the .config file.
>>>>>  I think the commit message should explain why this stamp file is preferred over
>>>>> repeating the fixup in each target.
>>>> I'm trying to come up with good reasons here, but the only real one I
>>>> can find is to avoid duplicating code and avoid redoing the fixup
>>>> unnecessarily.
>>>> Did you have anything else in mind?
>>>  Well, I never proposed to introduce an extra stamp file, did I? :-)
>>>  The reasons you put forward are OK, they should just be mentioned in the commit
>>> message because it's a change from how things are currently done, and this
>>> should be motivated. That way, if someone later on finds a reason to revert to
>>> repeating the fixup, they can see why it was done this way to begin with.
>> Is the commit message of v2 sufficient for you or should I add something?
>  How about: "With the extra stamp file, we avoid redoing the fixup unnecessarily."
>  (I don't have time now to look at v2 in detail.)
>>>  BTW, it doesn't really avoid duplication of code. Now we have repetitions of
>>> $(UCLIBC_DIR)/.stamp_configured: $(UCLIBC_DIR)/.stamp_config_fixup_done
>>> and otherwise we'd have repetitions of
>> Yes true.
>> If others also prefer the repeating of FIXUP_DOT_CONFIG over the stamp
>> file solution I can change that, of course.
>  I'm OK with either way.
>  I'm not really a big fan of adding an extra stamp file. However, I can imagine
> that we'll evolve towards a new generic step between patch and configure (also
> for e.g. autoreconf); then this approach will match nicely with the generic
> infrastructure.
>  Actually, this is probably one for Peter to rule upon.

I now found a pretty good reason why the stamp file is better: when
extracting the kconfig logic to a common kconfig-package
infrastructure, the stamp file rules and the dependency expressions
can entirely be placed
in that infrastructure. The package itself only has to provide a
If we do not use stamp files and let the CONFIGURE_CMDS actually
contain FIXUP_DOT_CONFIG, then it's the responsibility of the package
to actually add this, it is not under control of the kconfig-package,
so more fragile.

I will also add this to the commit message.

Best regards,

More information about the buildroot mailing list