On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 08:37 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > Op 3 jun 2011, om 03:06 heeft Khem Raj het volgende geschreven: > > > On Thursday, June 02, 2011 09:37:41 AM Richard Purdie wrote: > >> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 20:40 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 20:37, Phil Blundell <p...@pbcl.net> wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 20:09 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >>>>> -# CONFIG_MDEV is not set > >>>>> +CONFIG_MDEV=y > >>>> > >>>> Per previous discussion, I am still uneasy about this change. I think > >>>> we really need some sort of coherent policy for what exactly the > >>>> default busybox configuration in oe-core is meant to be doing, and > >>>> then (if necessary) a set of patches to make it match the policy. > >>>> Just flipping random features on and off does not seem like a good way > >>>> to proceed. > >>> > >>> OE-core has support to mdev as device handling mechanism as such this > >>> ought to be enabled by default IMO. > >>> > >>> Personally it doesn't matter since I have already overriden it in my > >>> internal layer. > >> > >> I'm afraid I'm with Phil on this. I don't like the idea of enabling > >> something we don't actually use. This really needs to become some kind > >> of configure option which would at the same time disable/replace udev so > >> the patch in its currently form isn't acceptable. > >> > > > > mdev or udev are image features so probably should be controlled by > > IMAGE_FEATURES or some such > > You can't put IMAGE_FEATURES in the equivalent of EXTRA_OECONF since > the packages in the feeds don't magically change when being installed > in a different image.
Right, it would have to be a DISTRO_FEATURE for that reason... Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core