On 01/06/2011 07:12 AM, Jarod Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 09:21:16PM -0800, JD wrote: >> On 01/05/2011 08:47 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote: >>> From the kernel spec: >>> >>> # Dynamically generate kernel .config files from config-* files >>> make -f %{SOURCE20} VERSION=%{version} configs >>> >>> And Source20 is Makefile.config, from which with a bit of effort, you can >>> determine the order in which the various config-* files are smashed >>> together to form the end result .config files. >>> >>> I think this topic actually came up once in the past, and an idea to add >>> an extra layer similar to the 'if rhel' clause in the spec was kicked >>> around, but never came to fruition. In theory, that file would, if >>> present, apply additional Kconfig changes from an additional overrides >>> file. It could be an empty file by default, but obviously named or >>> documented, so that anyone rebuilding could simply put their assorted >>> additional config options in there, and they'd always be applied over the >>> top of the stock config options. >>> >> Thank you Jared. >> It does seem strange to me that after so many years, the packagers >> have totally ignore the needs of the custom configuration kernel builders. >> Maybe, now that we are 10 years into the 21st century, the packagers >> will get around to giving us this sorely needed capability. > The kernel folks have always been open to additions to the kernel spec if > they're sane, don't cause any undue burden, and if there's actually enough > demand to warrant carrying them. To date, nobody has really said much of > anything about wanting it to be easier to support custom configurations, > particularly on an ongoing, roll-forward way. So far as I know, most > people just run stock kernels, and the custom kernel build docs are mainly > utilized only occasionally for one-off builds. Its really a pretty simple > addition, its just that no more than one person that I can even vaguely > recall ever asked about even the possibility of it in the past several > years. > > It basically boils down to this: > > ./merge.pl<my config opts> <stock config> > <merged config> > > In the stock kernel,<my config opts> would simply be empty, so the merge > operation would do nothing, meaning we don't even need any conditionals, > just a new empty Source: file and wiring for it in %prep. > > Nb: your reply dropped the list cc, and I'll not add it back without your > express consent. Please feel free to re-add the list cc to any reply to me > though, I think this discussion *should* still be on the list. > Thanx! When I click "Reply", for some reason, it does not reply to the list. This seems to be the case not only with this list, but with other lists to which I subscribe via majordomo. At any rate, I agree that if it is indeed a burdensome thing to maintain and roll forward, then the minuscule demand does not justify the effort. That said, it just does not seem like a huge burden when all it has to do is re-arrange a script or two. Once done, I would venture it would not be so burdensome to carry forward. _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel