lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.25-rc8
    From
    Date
    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 14:59    [W:0.021 / U:0.512 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site