should include/bb_config.h really be in svn?

[Natanael Copa]

On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 01:02 +0200, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> On Thursday 12 October 2006 00:31, Jason Schoon wrote:
> > On 10/11/06, Denis Vlasenko <vda.linux at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday 11 October 2006 13:46, Natanael Copa wrote:

> > > > bb_config.h seems to be a generated file. Should it really be in svn?
> > >
> > > It is not generated. It's a band-aid to the fact that
> > > CONFIG_xxx which depend on unselected CONFIG_xxx
> > > do not get ENABLE_xxx defined at all, which is not
> > > expected to happen...
> >
> > It was generated in the previous build system automatically.
>
> I'm lost... What should I do with this?

I thought a saw in the comment that it was a generated file. When I
looked now the comment didnt say anything about being generated, so
everything is correct. I just got confused by the old version.

This could maybe have been avoided by renaming the file in the new
build, but I don't think its worth it. I don't think you need to do
anything :)

Thanks!

--
Natanael Copa