[Buildroot] [PATCH 0 of 7] Introduction of kconfig-package infrastructure
Thomas De Schampheleire
patrickdepinguin at gmail.com
Wed Jul 30 17:58:48 UTC 2014
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com> wrote:
> 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?
Is this a trick question? ;-)
I'm using mercurial to send out patches, unfortunately it does not
have a ready-made option to get this summary of patches. I have wanted
to do that in the past too, so I'll write a little script to mimic the
output of git here.
> * 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 never thought of it this way, but what you say makes perfect sense to me.
> I think it's really a minor change in the patches, and with this
> change, I'm willing to merge this package infra.
Great! I'm on it, hope to send out the adapted series soon...
More information about the buildroot