Messages in this thread |  | | Date | 27 Dec 2000 11:57:00 +0200 | From | (Kai Henningsen) | Subject | Re: How do we handle autoconfiguration? |
| |
[CC: list drastically trimmed]
esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) wrote on 26.12.00 in <200012262313.eBQNDBi07719@snark.thyrsus.com>:
> Linus, replying to Alan: > >> If we do that I'd rather see a make autoconfig that does the lot from > >> proc/pci etc 8) > > > >Good point. No point in adding a new config option, we should just have a > >new configurator instead. Of course, it can't handle many of the > >questions, so it would still have to fall back on asking.
> My original design for CML2 included a way to capture the results from > arbitrary procedural probes written in C or some scripting language > and use them in predicates. Imagine something like this: > > # PROCESSOR is string valued; we capture stdout from the probe > derive PROCESSOR from "myprobe1.sh"
I hope that design wouldn't mean that you can't configure a kernel on a machine different from the one supposed to run it, nor that you can't gather the autoconfiguration info on a machine where you won't build the kernel and don't have the full kernel sources.
Because that's a rather common situation in nontrivial installations.
MfG Kai - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |