[Buildroot] svn commit: trunk/buildroot/target/linux
Thiago A. Corrêa
thiago.correa at gmail.com
Mon Apr 7 14:01:50 UTC 2008
Ulf,
I for one use buildroot from an ssh shell, even thought the
building machine is right besides me. A default that requires X is
unreasonable, give that buildroot doesn't check for X, and doesn't
require X either. I too back up the others on the opinion that the
default behavior should be menuconfig.
> I do not put this requirement on everyone else.
> The default behaviour is
> 1) To not build a kernel at all or
> 2) To build a kernel using the classic behaviour.
>
> Only by selecting two non-default behaviours you get
> exposed to the "advanced" linux configuration
> I have spent considerable time on during the last 9 months.
Actually, the default behavior for NGW100 and STK1000 is to use the
advanced linux configuration. And it's the only one that works at all
AFAIK.
> This will default to xconfig for AT91/AVR32 chips,
> but you have the option to select the menuconfig you want.
Which is exactly what most people seam to be using at the moment. At
least I haven't seen any target/device/Hitachi users, I doubt it even
builds new days.
Whenever I do an an{stk1002|ngw100}_defconfig, I have to craw thru a
bunch of menus and packages to change stuff (libdaemon doesn't build
on gentoo, using -j2 makes lot more sense than -j1, etc, etc....). Why
should a default config be tailored to a single user's needs?
IMHO it should be a reasonable minimum set of options most would be
happy with, and clearly xconfig isn't.
> If someone wants a different behaviour,
> then they can create yet another linux makefile.
That would just introduce more maintenance, just makes no sense.
> > Even easier, change the setting in the defconfigs he works with.
> >
Please don't. We might use ARMs too in the future. :)
What about the make BOARD=<name> save/get thing? I never used it
myself, but should work as an option.
Kind Regards,
Thiago A. Correa
More information about the buildroot
mailing list