Re: [patch 2/2] kbuild: fix crossbuild base config

[Roman Zippel]

Hi,

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Tom Rini wrote:

> > > This has actually created not-working UML binaries (since UML is always
> > > "cross-compiled" for this purpose), as reported by Julian Scheid.
> > 
> > This rather suggests, there is a problem with UML. Either fix your Kconfig 
> > to prevent nonvalid configurations or detect and report the problem at 
> > runtime.
> 
> No, this is a damn annoying kbuild problem when cross compiling.

The ability to create a nonworkable UML binary is _not_ a kbuild problem, 
especially in the UML case I would expect it should be possible to avoid 
this.

> > > We all agreed on this kind of general, not UML-only fix, and I (Paolo)
> > > implemented it.
> > 
> > I don't like the two separate lists, it would be easier to just skip all 
> > absolute path names.
> > I would also like to avoid this patch at all. If this really should be a 
> > problem, I'd consider to don't run kconfig at all in this case if there 
> > is no configuration and instead suggest running defconfig (or one of 
> > machine specific config targets) first.
> 
> I have a feeling that changing the behavior of 'make {,x,g,q}config' to
> fail if there's no .config will upset a lot of users, possibly even more
> than would be upset by never looking in /boot or /lib ever.

I'm only talking about cross compiling here. From people who do this, I 
sort of expect, that they know what they do. You can misconfigure a kernel 
in native compiles as well, this patch solves the wrong problem. 
E.g. if someone wrote a patch which stores the arch in .config and warns/ 
refuses to load it for a different configuration, I would accept it 
happily.

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/