by popular demand: bring back KERNEL_CONFIGURE=yes *during image build*

[rpardini]

by popular demand: bring back KERNEL_CONFIGURE=yes during image build

It seems I was once again terribly wrong. People love KERNEL_CONFIGURE=yes and specially the ability to select in dialog, and specially the one-step config+build all at once. Sorry for inconvenience caused...

• partially revert 6ef394d (thus bring back the TUI/dialog for selecting KERNEL_CONFIGURE=yes/no)
• partially revert d890b41 (thus bring back the capacity to config & build image in one go)
• stop after configuring kernel, but only if command is kernel-config, not regular image-build KERNEL_CONFIGURE=yes

[rpardini]

Let me ping @SteeManMI again here, since this is possibly the 3rd time I'm changing this. Terribly sorry...

[iav]

Works as promised

[EvilOlaf]

If I use both KERNEL_CONIGURE=yes and kernel command it runs into KERNEL_CONFIGURE=yes is not supported anymore.

[rpardini]

If I use both KERNEL_CONIGURE=yes and kernel command it runs into KERNEL_CONFIGURE=yes is not supported anymore.

Hmm. Yeah, this PR (up until now) only unlocks KERNEL_CONFIGURE=yes during image build, not during artifact/kernel build. Also, keep in mind that kernel will not prompt you via dialog for values (all has to be supplied via cmdline or config-file).

How important is this combo? It can be achieved, but is contrived.

[EvilOlaf]

Well the old way (and IMHO ideal since well established an known) has been to use KERNEL_CONFIGURED=yes KERNEL_ONLY=yes to build uboot/kernel debs with allowing user kernel configuration.
KERNEL_CONFIGURE=yes kernel would work too of course but why re-inventing the wheel?

[rpardini]

KERNEL_ONLY=yes

This is 100% out of the picture and I don't think it is coming back (at least no by my hand, if I wanna keep any semblance of sanity). KERNEL_ONLY=yes back in old master meant "only packages", and not really "only kernel", and was interweaved in a lot of bad ways. Sorry.

KERNEL_CONFIGURE=yes kernel

That's doable, I'll send a separate PR.

[SteeManMI]

@rpardini I'm not going to have time to look at this now, I think there are enough other eyes providing input however.