From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas De Schampheleire Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 08:30:43 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] targets: move target options to their own sub-menu In-Reply-To: <520D5FE6.2090007@mind.be> References: <1376598482-9492-1-git-send-email-yann.morin.1998@free.fr> <520D5FE6.2090007@mind.be> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > On 15/08/13 22:28, Yann E. MORIN wrote: >> >> diff --git a/arch/Config.in b/arch/Config.in >> index 0b5b218..640926a 100644 >> --- a/arch/Config.in >> +++ b/arch/Config.in >> @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@ >> +menu "Target options" > > > I completely agree with the idea - especially in the xconfig, the big list > of architecture options is extremely annoying. However, the menu title is > not very clear. How about "Target architecture selection"? Or maybe > > Target CPU architecture > > Target CPU architecture family > > Target CPU architecture variant > Well, I think the menu provides more than just the cpu architecture choice. It includes other things like ABI choice, binary format selection, and floating point strategy. The name 'target options' fits better for these options than anything with 'target cpu architecture' in it, but I'm open for other suggestions. While we're at reorganizing the top-level menu: I find the order of the menus odd. Current order is; (Target options) Build options Toolchain System configuration Package selection for the target Host utilities Filesystem images Bootloaders Kernel Legacy config options I think Bootloaders and Kernel should come earlier in the list and reversed, and Host utilities should be after filesystem images. My proposal is thus: (Target options) Build options Toolchain System configuration Package selection for the target Kernel Bootloaders Filesystem images Host utilities Legacy config options What is your opinion? Thanks, Thomas