On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:25:21AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > dist-configs would be supported but not as an expected common command and > > would only be seen through dist-full-help? > > Yeah, I think that's what he's getting at. dist-configs would be an internal > only target. Internally hidden (behind dist-full-help) but publicly available. > > > > > And the main reason is really time, right? If generating un-used fedora > > configs only consumed less than a second of time, we wouldn't care. It is > > because it takes about 10 seconds it is a problem? Which is fine, I just > > want to understand the true underlying problem. > > Right. rh-configs and fedora-configs are nice in that they build ONLY those > configs. That doesn't quite answer my question. If it would only take a fraction of a second to build them would we care? Or is there something else technically that is driving us in this direction? Cheers, Don _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
