Hi, [Added linux-kbuild@ to the Cc: list.] On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:13 PM, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:41:29 +1000 > >> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:40:11 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:30:32 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> > >>> > Here's what I am applying as a merge fixup to the net tree today so that >>> > my ppc64_defconfig builds actually build more or less the same set of >>> > drivers as before this rearrangement. >>> >>> And this today: >> >> And this: > > I'm starting to get uncomfortable with this whole situation, and I > feel more and more that these new kconfig guards are not tenable. > > Changing defconfig files might fix the "automated test boot with > defconfig" case but it won't fix the case of someone trying to > automate a build and boot using a different, existing, config file. > It ought to work too, and I do know people really do this. > > And just the fact that we would have to merge all of these defconfig changes > through the networking tree is evidence of how it's really not reasonable > to be doing things this way. > > Jeff, I think we need to revert the dependencies back to what they were > before the drivers/net moves. Could you prepare a patch which does that? > Are you implying we need some kind of way to migrate config ? - Arnaud -- 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
