Re: [kbuild 2/5] Dont use the running kernels config file by default

[Roman Zippel]

Hi,

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:

> > > A user ran into the following problem: They grab a SuSE kernel-source
> > > package that is more recent than their running kernel. The tree under
> > > /usr/src/linux is unconfigured by default; there is no .config. User
> > > does a ``make menuconfig'', which gets its default values from
> > > /boot/config-$(uname -r). User tries to build the kernel, which doesn't
> > > work.
> > 
> > NAK. This isn't normally supposed to happen and it shouldn't be as bad 
> > anymore as it used to be. Removing these path doesn't magically create a 
> > working kernel.
> 
> "Not normally supposed to happen" and "shouldn't be as bad anymore"
> aren't very sound arguments.

It's as precise as above problem report. 

> It's fundamentally broken to use a
> semi-random configuration for a kernel source tree that may be
> arbitrarily far apart.

No, it's not. Please provide more information why exactly this is broken.

> It's not uncommon that users who build their own kernel modules often
> are very clueless. Nevertheless we shouldn't cause them pain
> unnecessarily.

So they should first try the 2.6 kernel provided by the distribution and 
then try compiling their own kernel. In this situation it's actually more 
likely that they produce a working kernel with the current behaviour, the 
defconfig is not a guarantee for a working kernel either.
Sorry, but as long as nobody writes an autoconfig tool for the kernel, the 
kernel configuration is not a simple process and any default can only be a 
compromise and may fail. If you have evidence that there are better 
defaults, we can change this, but your problem report above is not enough.

bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/