[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080214223832.GA23149@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:38:32 +0100
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.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 :-))]
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 01:56:13AM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> 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.
Much better and now I see it I recall you posted something
along these lines before.
Is this something that you plan to look into implementing?
I can do the kbuild bits but I need you to do the kconfig
stuff (which is by far the biggest effort too).
It would be much appreciated to get this.
Sam
--
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