On 10/11/2011 08:53 AM, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Darren Hart <dvh...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> I would want this to affect linux-yocto-tiny by dropping the vt.cfg and >> inet.cfg fragments from the SRC_URI (or from the .scc descriptor files >> assembled by the linux-yocto meta indrastructure). >> >> Busybox would need a similar configuration mechanism, and would also >> need to add a "no-vt-support.patch" patch to the SRC_URI to avoid a >> bug/oversight in the busybox init routine. > > Just chiming in on this point - I think busybox will need something > very similar to config fragments. It has a lot of functionality that > should be configurable.
Agreed, and it can probably use a very similar mechanism to what I've been working to get into the upstream Linux kernel. I've been looking at the uclibc recipe configuration functions. It looks like it tries to solve a similar problem using feature lists and programatically modifying the .config. More research needed there... -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
