> dg50@daimlerchrysler.com said:
> [...]
>> 4) The work involved with writing a general purpose kernel config parser
>> (which may enable more than just this particular tool) is considered
>> excessive.
> This is being done.
Ah, cool. Who's doing it? What language?
>> Well, all this suggests to me that the real problem lurking at the root
of
>> this discussion is the current config system. Fix it, and the problem
goes
>> away.
> One part of the problem goes away. You see, any configuration system has
to
> read the files to find out on what they depend... so they have to be
there
> to find out if you need them ;-)
Well, in the specific case of the userland download tool we've been
discussing, that's not a problem - it's sitting on a full kernel tree (on
the server) anyway.
It would do the dependancy check as part of assembling the tarball, so
you'd get all the required files up front. The only problem is if options
are selected during "make fooconfig" that differ from the config meta-info
provided to the download tool (ie, I downloaded PPC, but I then try and
build an Intel kernel via "make xconfig") - so then a bulletproof version
of the download tool would have to muck with the makefiles/config system to
disable options that were not provided in the custom tarball.
Hairy, but doable.
DG
-- Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:25 EST