2002-09-22 22:49:24

by Jeff Garzik

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [kbuild-devel] linux kernel conf 0.6

Kai Germaschewski wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>
>>One cosmetic thing I mentioned to Roman, Config.new needs to be changed
>>to something better, like conf.in or build.conf or somesuch.
>
>
> I agree. (But I'm not particularly good at coming up with names ;)
> build.conf is maybe not too bad considering that there may be a day where
> it is extended to support "<driver>.conf" as well.

We want to make sure the config format is extensible in case we want to
add Makefile rules or some other metadata (i.e. <driver>.conf contains
all config/make info needed to build a driver, just drop it in)


> One other thing I wanted to mention but forgot was that lkc now
> does a quiet "make oldconfig" when .config changed or does not exist,
> which is changed behavior.


Can you elaborate a bit on that? 'make oldconfig' is one of the things
we want to keep working as-is... That was a downside of ESR's system.
If you're saying "silent" as in, if-no-changes-occurred or
defconfig-copied-as-is, that's cool...

Jeff




2002-09-22 22:58:24

by Kai Germaschewski

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [kbuild-devel] linux kernel conf 0.6

On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> Kai Germaschewski wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> >
> >>One cosmetic thing I mentioned to Roman, Config.new needs to be changed
> >>to something better, like conf.in or build.conf or somesuch.
> >
> >
> > I agree. (But I'm not particularly good at coming up with names ;)
> > build.conf is maybe not too bad considering that there may be a day where
> > it is extended to support "<driver>.conf" as well.
>
> We want to make sure the config format is extensible in case we want to
> add Makefile rules or some other metadata (i.e. <driver>.conf contains
> all config/make info needed to build a driver, just drop it in)
>
>
> > One other thing I wanted to mention but forgot was that lkc now
> > does a quiet "make oldconfig" when .config changed or does not exist,
> > which is changed behavior.
>
>
> Can you elaborate a bit on that? 'make oldconfig' is one of the things
> we want to keep working as-is... That was a downside of ESR's system.
> If you're saying "silent" as in, if-no-changes-occurred or
> defconfig-copied-as-is, that's cool...

Roman probably knows better than I do, but anyway.

AFAICS, "quiet" only means the same thing as the traditional "make
oldconfig", but suppressing questions where the answers are known. (Which
I think is fine)

I was just referring to the following, which really is not in the subtle
change category:

-------------------------------------------------------------
[kai@zephyr linux-2.5.make]$ rm .config
[kai@zephyr linux-2.5.make]$ make
***
*** You have not yet configured your kernel!
***
*** Please run some configurator (e.g. "make oldconfig" or
*** "make menuconfig" or "make xconfig").
***
make: *** [.config] Error 1
-------------------------------------------------------------

whereas lkc changes this to run (the quiet) make oldconfig automatically.

Same thing for

-------------------------------------------------------------
[kai@zephyr linux-2.5.make]$ cp ../config-2.5 .config
[kai@zephyr linux-2.5.make]$ make
make[1]: Entering directory
`/home/kai/src/kernel/v2.5/linux-2.5.make/scripts'
make[1]: Leaving directory
`/home/kai/src/kernel/v2.5/linux-2.5.make/scripts'
***
*** You changed .config w/o running make *config?
*** Please run "make oldconfig"
***
-------------------------------------------------------------

Since people run automated builds, erroring out is IMHO preferable to
dropping into interactive mode, which likely happens when you run make
oldconfig.


--Kai