On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 14:26, Mark Hatle <mark.ha...@windriver.com> wrote:
> On 1/9/12 2:09 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: > >> You could take a look at the busybox-config.inc stuff in oe-classic as a >> starting point. It doesn't do PACKAGECONFIG (since oe-classic doesn't >> have that) but it can do the equivalent with DISTRO_FEATURES. >> > > At Wind River we've discussed using the kernel configuration fragment > patching process as a way to control busybox. This would allow the recipe > to provide a default fragment (configuration), with machines, > architectures, and other configurations providing additional fragments -- > that together would produce the busybox that the end use wants. > > I think this is a better long term approach then hacking the defconfig > file each time it's not quite right for a system. (We may still need to > modify it over time, but the modifications need to be considered "generic" > based on the use of busybox in say core-image-minimal...) I agree with the concept of the idea and long term solution however I also think it needs to be well documented otherwise it is going to be a problem, instead of a solution. When I tried to use the kernel configuration fragment from Yocto I couldn't figure it out by myself and it seems very undocumented thus its learn curve is not as good as I'd hope for... -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
