Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:00:48 +0200 | From | Emmanuel Deloget <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] Enable 'make CONFIG_FOO=y oldconfig' |
| |
On 08/10/2011 06:33 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 10:34 -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: >> your point being ? I might as well tell you that I find the current >> behavior of 'all*.config' just as broken wrt. to dependency >> management. > You might indeed. And I would find that commentary just as irrelevant > and unhelpful. > >>> If you have nothing relevant to say, just don't say anything. >>> >> maybe you can come with a detailed description of your proposal's >> behavior, including how to manage case like this, instead of just >> throwing patch around ? > How's this for a definition: > > "The behaviour for unsettable (or unclearable) options shall be exactly > like it already is if you put them in all*.config, or if you manually > edit the .config file and run 'make oldconfig', as people have been > doing for years. There is nothing new to see here." > >> If I do: >> >> # make CONFIG_WIRELESS_EXT=y allnoconfig >> >> I expect either a success or an error, not a silent discard. And >> *yes*, the problem already exists with "all*.config". > [dwmw2@i7 linux-2.6]$ make CONFIG_WIRELESS_EXT=y allnoconfig > scripts/kconfig/conf --allnoconfig Kconfig > # > # Could not set CONFIG_WIRELESS_EXT=y; perhaps it has unmet dependencies? > # > # > # configuration written to .config > # >
I understand that my question is indeed neither wanted nor clever, but what's the point of trying to support "make CONFIG_FOO=y"?
Will we be expected to type a 42 meters long command line to compile the kernel instead of doing a menuconfig in the foreseable future? (and between typos, unmet dependencies and the myriad of other possible errors, I'm not sure I'll get more free time).
I don't get it. If the goal is to help the kernel hackers and if it really helps them it might be a thing to do - it might prove useful for very simple CONFIG_ options but I'm not sure this will stay true for the general case.
Best regards,
-- Emmanuel
| |