On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:28:03AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 2/8/07, Oleg Verych <[email protected]> wrote:
> >proposition is to substitute:
> > "$(CONFIG_SHELL) $(MKIMAGE)"
> >with
> > "mkimage"
>
> this isnt a one-to-one change ... let's look at the typical
> mkimage-missing scenario ...
You are interested in presents of `mkimage', but yet we discussing its
missing, or "Error -> Don't care" behavior.
uImage, as i can compare with other *final* targets, like bzImage on PC,
must be made in case of `make uImage', or if default rule depends on
it. Thus, if it fails it, must be error. It doesn't matter what cause
it, and what message was printed:
> with mkuboot.sh you'd get output like:
> ...
> UIMAGE arch/blackfin/boot/vmImage
> "mkimage" command not found - U-Boot images will not be built
> Building modules, stage 2.
> ...
>
> with mkimage you'd get output like:
> ...
> UIMAGE arch/blackfin/boot/vmImage
> /bin/sh: mkimage: command not found
> make[1]: *** [arch/blackfin/boot/vmImage] Error 127
> make: *** [vmImage] Error 2
In this example `uImage' is required by final target, e.g.
,-*-
|all: prepare uImage modules_install
| while things; do them; done
`-*-
> so while you could change all the Makefile's to insert - to ignore
> *all* failures, without the script, you loose the ability to only
> ignore "binary missing" errors
So, are we ignoring our primary (default) goal?
OK, as you wish. As for me it's a plain bloat, but i have neither one
for-embedded setup to propose non-bloating change for _you_ (:.
> -mike
____
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
