Hi Thomas, On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 21:25 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 18:25:35 +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > > > > > That means for building of our toolchain we'll need to have > > separately stored "defconfigs" in some form. Let's see what Anton says on that :) > > > > And regardless of what mr Anton says having off-the-tree defconfigs is not the best idea > > because with time options will go in and out and occasionally we'll have outdated > > defconfigs. > > What would they be off-tree? > > What I meant is that when you look at the per architecture defconfigs, > they are also all exactly the same, except for the TARGET_<foo> option. > > So instead of having this big duplication, my suggestion is to get rid > of architecture-specific defconfig, and just have a few > architecture-independent defconfig, addressing common use cases (such > as "minimal" and "feature full"). That was exactly my understanding :) Speaking of "defconfigs" I really meant something that we may use for building our toolchain outside of Buildroot if we want something that differs from uClibc's defaults/defconfig - and most probably we'll need something either to add to uClibc's minimal_defconfig or exclude from _maximal_defconfig. Otherwise how may we be in control of libc in our "reference" toolchain? -Alexey
