[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200802140156.15325.zippel@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:56:13 +0100
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, greg@...ah.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, jeff@...zik.org,
arjan@...radead.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: distributed module configuration [Was: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-))]
Hi,
On Wednesday 13. February 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> config foo
> tristate "do you want foo?"
> depends on USB && BAR
> module
> obj-$(CONFIG_FOO) += foo.o
> foo-y := file1.o file2.o
> help
> foo will allow you to explode your PC
I'm more thinking about something like this:
module foo [FOO]
tristate "do you want foo?"
depends on USB && BAR
source file1.c
source file2.c if BAZ
Avoiding direct Makefile fragments would give us far more flexibility in the
final Makefile output.
> And we could introduce support for
>
> source "drivers/net/Kconfig.*"
>
> But then we would have to make the kconfig step mandatory
> for each build as we would otherwise not know if there
> were added any Kconfig files.
That's a real problem and it would be a step back of what we have right now,
so I'm not exactly comfortable with it.
bye, Roman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists