On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 16:14 -0500, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > >> >> I would not expect to see any header if there is no new symbol(s). > >> >> However, that might complicate the code too much. Btw, I find > >> >> "Changes" to be misleading, is that header necessary ? > >> > > >> > We use this feature (or an earlier version of it) in automated kernel > >> > builds in Debian, so we expect the output to appear in build logs and > >> > the header makes it easier to pick out. > >> > > >> That's easily doable outside kconfig. > > > > No it isn't, as the Kconfig code must be built as part of the > > listnewconfig target. (Building just the code first will provoke > > warnings about the invalid config.) > > > echo "#" > echo "# Changes:" > echo "#" > make [...] listnewconfig > > does the job, without introducing extra header others do not seem to > want to see. Now try that with a clean tree and an outdated config file. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
