Masahiro,
On 17/01/2018 20:31, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Sorry for my late reply.
I think we're even now :-)
>> I'd like to keep that sentence because it's there to explain the legacy and
>> confusing "--silentoldconfig" name which unfortunately still sticks out in
>> the *current* conf.c interface.
>>
>> + printf(" --silentoldconfig Similar to oldconfig but generates configuration in\n"
>> + " include/{generated/,config/} (oldconfig used to be more verbose)\n");
>>
>> The purpose of this sentence is to warn people that: "silentoldconfig is
>> just archeology, so you can safely ignore it" and save them time.
>>
>> The alternative I considered was to entirely remove "silentconfig" not just
>> from the Makefile's help but from the conf.c help too.
>
> Another possibility might be to rename 'silentoldconfig'.
> instead of explaining the background in the help message.
> [...]
> It is difficult to suggest a clear name,
> but 'syncconfig' is the one I came up with.
>
> Please suggest if you have a better idea.
Look like a good idea and name to me but... for a different, bigger
and later commit.
> Commit fb16d8912db5268f29706010ecafff74b971c58d
> renamed oldnoconfig to olddefconfig...
... but it didn't remove any "now internal API" from "make help". Instead it
changed the name of an external and preserved "API".
> If we worry about the compatibility just in case,
> we can keep 'silentoldconfig' as an alias as well.
Yes - but later?
In the meantime I found another instance of silentoldconfig in
Documentation/admin-guide/; posting v3 with that removed too.
I'm also adding some deprecation comments in the source.
--
Marc
--
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
