On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:35:30PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
I like what you achieve by this patchset.
But I do not agree on the naming you chose.
We have today:
oldconfig => very chatty
silentoldconfig => Asks only relevant questions
defconfig => silent
[I plan one day to make oldconfig behave like
silentoldconfig and drop the chatty mode]
And I see why you went for the name *_silentdefconfig
But in reality what we want to say is that we want to
interactively apply the _defconfig.
So if we could come up with something where we told
that we want to interactively use i386_defconfig
then the users would hopefully be less confused.
I have considered a few way to do so:
a) make I=1 i386_defconfig
b) make i_i386_defconfig
c) make ii386_defconfig
d) make i386_config
And none of these are actually good.
Any better ideas here?
See a few comments below.
Sam
This is the first time we use printf in the top-level Makefile.
Most likely because I never use printf in my shell scripts
so I guess this is not a problem.
This belong in a preparation patch. We should handle this
also if we do not do so from the Makefile.
Does conf_read() fail if we use the NULL argument?
I assume not so the above code can be simplified and
should also be in the same preparational patch as the change above.
Sam
--