On 02/02/2013 03:08 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com 
> <mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 02/01/2013 06:18 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>
>
>
>
>         On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:00 AM, <Qi.Chen@windriver.com
>         <mailto:Qi.Chen@windriver.com>
>         <mailto:Qi.Chen@windriver.com <mailto:Qi.Chen@windriver.com>>>
>         wrote:
>
>             From: Chen Qi <Qi.Chen@windriver.com
>         <mailto:Qi.Chen@windriver.com> <mailto:Qi.Chen@windriver.com
>         <mailto:Qi.Chen@windriver.com>>>
>
>
>             Add config fragments to busybox.
>
>             Both the implementation and the use case are similar to
>         yocto kernel's
>             configuration fragments.
>
>
>         I can fairly easily tweak the configuration parts of the
>         kern-tools to
>         handle this
>         use case as well. That would allow us to re-use the kernel's
>         merge_config.sh
>         script (with a minor dependency change) and save some
>         duplicated code. It
>         also gets you the advantage that you can consolidate
>         configuration fragments
>         outside of any build system, which isn't as critical here, but
>         something
>         that
>         is used quite a bit during kernel testing.
>
>     Bruce,
>
>     Where is the merge_config.sh script today?  Would you propose
>     moving it to the scripts dir and have the busybox recipe call it?
>
>
> It's part of the mainline kernel, hence why grabbing the guts out of 
> it reproducing
> it here isn't the best idea, we'll have a need to keep them in sync. 
> In fact, I have
> 2 or 3 pending patches for it in the kern-tools repository that I need 
> to get upstream
> (as an example).
>
> I'd propose either creating a separate recipe for it (i.e. like 
> kconfig-frontends) or I could
> keep it in kern-tools (badly named, but we can work on that ;) and 
> maintain / coordinate
> changes to it.
>
> I just don't want to see the effort happen twice, we are busy enough!
>
>
>     What would be your timing on making such a change, ie hold this
>     patch until your get it merge or merge this and then fix it when
>     you merge your changes?
>
>
> I could feasibly get it done in the next few weeks, the changes aren't 
> bug, I just
> have to avoid regressions on either side (kernel or busy box).
>
> That being said, the interface to the SRC_URI is the same for the two, 
> so if we are
> ok with me arriving and removing the in-recipe support, I guess I 
> can't object too
> much :) The only risk is that if anyone starts using this first 
> support immediately,
> I do risk regressing their use case, where if it never goes in, that 
> won't happen.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bruce
>
>

Hi Bruce,

I just tried to reuse the kernel's merge_config.sh script, and it turned 
out well.
The patch is in attachment.

Is it enough for now?
If so, I'll send out the patch.

Thanks,
Chen Qi