You seem to have a very stance; is this even up for discusion or will it come down to a principled "over my dead body"? :)
>On 2012-04-14 9:37 PM, Jeroen van Bemmel wrote: >> The Linux kernel version is an important configuration aspect still >> missing from menuconfig. It should be possible to have the full config >> in a single .config file; Makefiles are the wrong place for setting this >> parameter. >> I agree it would be uncommon to change this, that's why it is a >> developer option. >Since this is meant for developers, it really does not need to be in >.config. Editing a makefile is easy for a developer. Adding a config >option simply adds yet another place where the version number has to be >maintained, without making things significantly easier. Compiling anything is for developers. Whatever helps is a Good Thing; nobody expects the holy grail. >> I think we're missing a process for updating the kernel version; can't >> just edit the Makefile and hope all images keep working. Device profiles >> could be a way to at least coordinate testing of a specific version for >> a specific device. It does not set the kernel version, but the suggested >> version for testing >Most targets have a generic profile that works for all devices anyway. >For people that do not follow all changes in a target it would come as a >nasty surprise when simply switching profiles suddenly nukes the kernel >tree and uses a different version. > >There is another annoying issue with having too many config options: >Random users playing with developer-only options, then complaining about >breakage later without mentioning that they changed some options that >they had no clue about. Talking of "developers vs clueless users" isn't helpful. Good developers constantly acquire new skills -- clueless before, experienced after -- and there's plenty of bad developers writing crappy kernel code without a config. If you mean those "time-consuming, hopeless, lazy, RTFD-immune, wannabe developers", I suggest adding a Trac entry like for any other problem requiring a solution, starting with a detailed rational (unemotional) description. Maybe a mandatory web form that generates a sanity report before considering complaints would filter out most of this human-to-human spam. >We've seen this with compiler options, libc >options, deselecting packages, etc. I really don't want to add kernel >versions to the mix, especially with so little potential gain from >adding something like this. I agree that just throwing in more options is bad, but so is obscuring parts of the build, reserved to an elite developer caste. -- p _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
