On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:29:36 +0200 (CEST)
Roman Zippel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Andres Salomon wrote:
>
> > AFAICT, there is nothing similar when using *_defconfig; one must copy
> > a .config manually, and then run silentoldconfig. Simply running the
> > associated _defconfig will quietly update the config (which may silently
> > drop config options). This patch adds a *_silentdefconfig target, with
> > semantics similar to silentoldconfig. It will take the defconfig from
> > arch/$(ARCH)/configs/$x_defconfig, check for changes, and if there are
> > none, write out a .config. If there have been changes and stdin is
> > valid, it will prompt for updates. If there have been changes and
> > stdin is not valid, it will bail out with an error.
>
> I would really like to avoid another input mode.
> I think it be better to implement this as a combination of "-s -D
> <default>" and the silent mode is adjusted to read another config instead
> of .config if defconfig_file is set.
>
As would I; however, that requires using getopt() (or equivalent). I wasn't
sure if there was some opposition to this..
Of course, we'll still need some way from the makefile to call it. I take
it you're not opposed to 'make foo_silentdefconfig'?
> > A few things to note:
> > - Using getopt() in scripts/kconfig/conf.c would likely simplify things,
> > but that's a much larger patch. Is there a reason we don't use it?
>
> Not really.
>
Cool, I'll submit a patch that does this.
> > - To make it truly silent, I had to change conf_write() to accept an
> > additional arg. The alternative is to not have conf_write spit out
> > any information when it writes a file. Personally, I don't see the need
> > for it to spit out information, but I figured I'd take the more cautious
> > route. If folks don't care, I can update this patch to remove it.
>
> I rather want to keep this print. The .config is already only written,
> when it has to be in this mode and then I also want to be notified about
> it.
>
> > - We seem to switch between using _() and not using it for strings; I'm
> > assuming that we don't actually care about i18n in conf.c, and that the
> > _() stuff was just copied from elsewhere. If that's not the case, I
> > can update the patch to wrap strings properly.
>
> I try to keep this uptodate, but I don't really check for this.
>
I'm not sure I follow; should I use _(), or no?
> bye, Roman
--
Andres Salomon <[email protected]>
-
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]
