Re: [PATCH 2/2] Enable 'make CONFIG_FOO=y oldconfig'

[Arnaud Lacombe]

Hi,

[Added Roman Zippel to the Cc: list.]

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 8:29 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/30/2011 05:05 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>>
>>> Why????
>>>
>> Because kconfig might not be ran exclusively from a fully controlled
>> and restricted environment ? Not to mention that it is used by other
>> people than the linux kernel folks.
>>
>
> I'm sorry, but whitelisting specific options is an absolutely idiotic
> way to deal with that.
I'm sure the author of `option env=""' will appreciate that. I'd be
interested to know if there was a reason to do it that way rather than
allow the environment to override all symbols.

> The options use a specific namespace (CONFIG_*),
CONFIG_ is sure very specific namespace...

> and only allowing some options to be set on the command line, but not
> others, is a serious violation of the principle of least surprise.
>
The principle of least surprise is broken anyway as the proposed patch
has absolutely no dependency checking and verification. You can `make
CONFIG_SATA_MV=y allnoconfig', you will _not_ get it set.

 - Arnaud

>        -hpa
>
> --
> H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
> I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.
>
>
--
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/