On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 08:57:25AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 19:18 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> > > > > In order to help unify the naming scheme for shared > > backports versioning information rely on the CPTCFG_ > > prefix, when integration support gets added that will > > translate to the respective CONFIG_BACKPORT_ prefix. > > Kconfig opt env entries don't get propagated out, so > > we need to define these ourselves. This leaves all > > other names in place for packaging and just focuses > > on sharing on the C / header code. > > What difference does this make? It'll break some scripting that we have > for sure (assuming the BACKPORTED_ prefix), so naturally I'd like to see > why it is necessary. Sure, let me explain. So if we don't unify we will have to end up with defines for some packaging version scheme to another. The approach I took here was to minimize impact on on userspace side generation side of things and only affect the target C code by modifying the Makefile to define variables we can share. That's pretty much it. I ended up defining things with CPTCFG_ as that will get morphed to the other bp_prefix later for us when integrating. That lets us share it. Addressing this on scripts that do rely on touching C / H files should just be a matter of doing a direct translation to 3 variables. 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
