![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 15:08 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Linus Torvalds writes: > > > Well, that part isn't the one that I think is bothersome - I just wonder > > if the whole "defconfig" mess is worth keeping with the kernel at _all_. > > > > It also causes tons of noise whenever I happen to do something like "git > > grep CONFIG_XYZZY" to see where some config variable is used etc. > > > > So I was more wondering whether maybe there could be better ways of doing > > that whole thing. > > Having the defconfigs seems to be useful for the embedded folks, > judging by the number of defconfigs they have. They generally have a > defconfig for each reference board. I'm thinking of getting rid of the board specific defconfigs for PowerPC 4xx actually. We already have ppc44x_defconfig that builds most boards, and ppc40x_defconfig will be coming soon. Of course, that might not be possible for other architectures to do. > Those defconfigs would be much smaller and change much less often if > they could be expressed as a delta from some other defconfig. So we'd > end up with a small number of base defconfigs plus a set of board > defconfigs that would say effectively "use the options from that other > defconfig, plus turn this on and that off". IIRC, Fedora builds their kernels using such a mechanism, though it's done in the RPM specfile with a perl script. Maybe that's something to look at to start with. josh | |||||||||
| Last update: 2008-04-03 12:59 [W:1.161 / U:0.220 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | ||||||||||