Hi, [Added Roman Zippel to the Cc: list.] On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 8:29 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/30/2011 05:05 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: >>> >>> Why???? >>> >> Because kconfig might not be ran exclusively from a fully controlled >> and restricted environment ? Not to mention that it is used by other >> people than the linux kernel folks. >> > > I'm sorry, but whitelisting specific options is an absolutely idiotic > way to deal with that. I'm sure the author of `option env=""' will appreciate that. I'd be interested to know if there was a reason to do it that way rather than allow the environment to override all symbols. > The options use a specific namespace (CONFIG_*), CONFIG_ is sure very specific namespace... > and only allowing some options to be set on the command line, but not > others, is a serious violation of the principle of least surprise. > The principle of least surprise is broken anyway as the proposed patch has absolutely no dependency checking and verification. You can `make CONFIG_SATA_MV=y allnoconfig', you will _not_ get it set. - Arnaud > -hpa > > -- > H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center > I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
