On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Johannes Berg > <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 4) Kconfig. >> This is a bit conflicting with 1) because a valid Kconfig structure >> requires >> all the sub-Kconfig files exist. Maybe ship all Kconfig files, or >> automate a >> way to remove "source" statements for files that don't exist >> (probably easy) > > I think its possible to remove not desired source code based on > reading .config. This can be done as a pass if the Kconfig to Makefile > thing is figured out. Then as a secondary step I think we can remove > directories that have just a Kconfig / Makefile, but that's > theoretical, in practice this may be harder, the biggest issue I think > would be to ensure removal of the calling 'source foo/Kconfig' entry, > or we extend Kconfig to support Kconfig imports that don't exist, sort > of with Makefile and the -include foo.mk trick. Another thing I should mention here about Kconfig. 'make localmodconfig' is great and IMHO something which we should strive for as well for end users. The issue comes in when you have to build something for remote systems. For this I wrote a script a while ago to let us extract only the necessary components from the kernel, scp to target, and extract back our .config [0]. This is hacky but something to keep in mind. [0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/12/350 Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
