Re: [patch 2/2] kbuild: fix crossbuild base config

[Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>]

Hi,

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Blaisorblade wrote:

> You later say "If possible, I'd avoid this patch at all". Why? Is this code 
> too intrusive, or implementing a wrong check, or bloating the source?

It adds a special case to the kconfig core to make it behave differently, 
but it shouldn't behave differently depending on how the kernel is 
compiled.

> > > E.g. if someone wrote a patch which stores the arch in .config and warns/
> > > refuses to load it for a different configuration, I would accept it
> > > happily.
> Yes, this is another idea, which is also fine, while not excluding the other 
> IMHO.

This is the better solution, because it solves the more general problem, 
when a .config doesn't match the Kconfig and not just your special case.

> > We already have part of this, except I don't know for certain of
> > CONFIG_ARCH == CONFIG_$(SUBARCH) (... to mix syntax all the hell up).
> 
> No warning is output. Or better, yes, you get warnings, but tons of not clear 
> ones, like "warning, undefined symbol".

I don't really expect to use CONFIG_$(SUBARCH) and rather add a real 
CONFIG_ARCH to Kconfig.

bye, Roman