Re: [PATCH 4/4] kconfig: add *_silentdefconfig feature for config targets

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Sam Ravnborg
Date: Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 1:47 pm

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
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH 4/4] kconfig: add *_silentdefconfig feature for ..., Sam Ravnborg, (Sun Apr 27, 1:47 pm)