[Buildroot] [PATCH 0 of 7] Introduction of kconfig-package infrastructure
thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com
Tue Jul 29 21:52:08 UTC 2014
Dear Thomas De Schampheleire,
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:49:27 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> This patch series introduces a kconfig-package infrastructure and already
> converts the uclibc and busybox packages.
> The series is based on the to-be-applied uclibc patch series that improves the
> behavior of the kconfig parts.
Weird, you don't have the summary of patches in the cover letter. Don't
you use 'git --cover format-patch' to generate the cover letter?
* I've applied two preparation patches of this series:
uclibc: use $(MAKE) iso $(MAKE1) for menuconfig target
linux: remove support of linux26-* targets
This way, you don't have to carry them anymore.
* Regarding the kconfig-package infra stuff, I'm mostly fine with it,
except for one detail: it pretends to be a package infrastructure,
but it is not. It is only a kind of "library" / "helper" to use next
to a real package infrastructure. And I think this is pretty
confusing considering the name that was chosen, and the way it works.
My proposal would therefore be to turn it into a real package
infrastructure by simply making it inherit from generic-package,
much like autotools-package, cmake-package and al. All kconfig-based
packages are otherwise generic-package. I don't see the logic behind
using Kconfig for an autotools-based or cmake-based package, since
autotools and cmake are precisely here to provide configuration
capabilities that overlap with what kconfig provides. And as of
today, we have linux, barebox, uclibc and busybox, and all of these
use the generic-package infra.
I think it's really a minor change in the patches, and with this
change, I'm willing to merge this package infra.
Of course, comments/reviews from others are more than welcome!
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
More information about the buildroot