[oe] bitbake virtual/kernel -c menuconfig

[Phil Blundell]

On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 07:43 -0700, Chuck Kamas wrote:
> The kernel is 2.6.28 and the patches are the AT91 set.   What is
> interesting is that I change nothing but the distro= line and the
> menuconfig works with the patches applied.  I do know that there is a
> lot hidden behind the distro= line,  that is why I am asking the experts
> for their insight into how it all works and where to look for what is
> going wrong.

I just did "bitbake -c menuconfig
-b ../org.openembedded.dev/recipes/linux/linux_2.6.28.bb" using
DISTRO=minimal, MACHINE=at91sam9263ek and it seemed to apply the patches
correctly:

NOTE: Running task 4 of 5 (ID:
3, /home/pb/oe/org.openembedded.dev/recipes/linux/linux_2.6.28.bb,
do_patch)
NOTE: Applying patch
'linux-2.6.28-at91.patch' (tmp/work/at91sam9263ek-oe-linux-gnueabi/linux-2.6.28-r9/linux-2.6.28-at91.patch)
NOTE: Applying patch
'linux-2.6.28-exp.patch' (tmp/work/at91sam9263ek-oe-linux-gnueabi/linux-2.6.28-r9/linux-2.6.28-exp.patch)
NOTE: Running task 5 of 5 (ID:
4, /home/pb/oe/org.openembedded.dev/recipes/linux/linux_2.6.28.bb,
do_menuconfig)

So, I'm a bit baffled as to why it isn't working for you.  I also tried
the same thing with DISTRO=micro and, again, it worked fine for me.

> Regarding Angstrom:  I have no animosity against it. I am simply
> following the rule: "start with the bare metal and build up".

Right, that's a perfectly respectable point of view.  Micro, at least,
is less complicated than Angstrom and does have the potential to produce
smaller images.  Actually, that reminds me, I have some patches to
eliminate further bloat in micro that I should submit :-)

p.