[Buildroot] [PATCH 0 of 7] Introduction of kconfig-package infrastructure

[Thomas Petazzoni]

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?

Anyway:

 * 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!

Thanks,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com