On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 04:05:35AM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 09:59:50AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Harvey,
> >
> > On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:43:57 -0800 Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is it really fair to drop the v4l tree when it was -staging that broke? I'd humbly
> > > suggest that staging be weighted somewhat lower than the other trees.
> >
> > There is no staging tree in linux-next, that driver is in Linus' tree. I
> > agree that if there was a staging tree, it would be much lower priority.
> >
> > Maybe we need some way to exclude the staging directory from
> > all{yes,mod}config builds ...
>
> That is simple to do. Something like:
>
> config STAGING_EXCLUDE_BUILD
> bool "Exclude Staging from the build"
>
>
> And test for this in the Staging Makefile
>
> When this is set to 'y' then we will not build
> the staging tree.
While that would work, it does seem odd to be asked two things:
"Staging drivers (y/N)"
if Y is chosen, they then get asked:
"Exclude Staging from the build? (Y/n)"
It's like, "are you sure you really want to build this part of the
tree?" If that would make people's lives easier, I have no objection to
it, it's just kind of funny :)
Stephen, what do you think?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
