Re: CML2 funkiness

From: Eric S. Raymond (
Date: Thu Jan 03 2002 - 02:31:05 EST

Andrew Rodland <>:
> I found it!
> The culprit: a bit of confusion over 'private'.
> All of the not-saved symbols were just guards for 'do we
> want to display question X'... so they were marked
> private, so as not to clutter up the kernel (I assume).
> However, this prevents them from getting written to
> .config/config.out as well! Easy fix is to un-private
> them, long-term is (as I see it) either to create a new
> equivalent to private that somehow lets the symbol get
> written to defconfig, but prevents it from becoming a
> kernel define, or just to blow it off and don't worry
> about it, and leave them normal symbols. However, it's
> 1:30AM and I might be missing something.

I think the right thing will be to write private symbols into config.out,
but with an attached PRIVATE label that stops from
translating these into defines for the autoconf.h file.

That's what I've done for the upcoming CML 2.0.0 release.

		<a href="">Eric S. Raymond</a>

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.... Do not be frightened from this inquiry from any fear of its consequences. If it ends in the belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise... -- Thomas Jefferson, in a 1787 letter to his nephew - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to More majordomo info at Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:20 EST