Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261797AbUKCRuj (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:50:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261790AbUKCRuj (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:50:39 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao08.cox.net ([68.230.241.31]:56276 "EHLO fed1rmmtao08.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261793AbUKCRs6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:48:58 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 10:48:56 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Roman Zippel Cc: blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, julian@sektor37.de, mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca, sam@ravnborg.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] kbuild: fix crossbuild base config Message-ID: <20041103174856.GG381@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <20041102232001.370174C0BC@zion.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1597 Lines: 38 On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 05:56:46PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it wrote: > > > This has actually created not-working UML binaries (since UML is always > > "cross-compiled" for this purpose), as reported by Julian Scheid. > > This rather suggests, there is a problem with UML. Either fix your Kconfig > to prevent nonvalid configurations or detect and report the problem at > runtime. No, this is a damn annoying kbuild problem when cross compiling. It's just nice that the UML folks run into this too and found a better fix than deleting the /boot and /lib files from the list. > > We all agreed on this kind of general, not UML-only fix, and I (Paolo) > > implemented it. > > I don't like the two separate lists, it would be easier to just skip all > absolute path names. > I would also like to avoid this patch at all. If this really should be a > problem, I'd consider to don't run kconfig at all in this case if there > is no configuration and instead suggest running defconfig (or one of > machine specific config targets) first. I have a feeling that changing the behavior of 'make {,x,g,q}config' to fail if there's no .config will upset a lot of users, possibly even more than would be upset by never looking in /boot or /lib ever. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/