On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 04:03:17PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 02:31:58PM +0100, Stefan Weil wrote: > >> Michael S. Tsirkin schrieb: > >> > On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 03:39:03PM +0100, Stefan Weil wrote: > >> > > >> >> This makes rebuilds after source updates easier > >> >> for most users (who don't edit config-devices.mak). > >> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <w...@mail.berlios.de> > >> >> > >> > > >> > Sorry about missing this and not commenting earlier. > >> > > >> > So the problem here is that it relies on keeping > >> > .old file around. This is a generated file, but > >> > - you don't remove it with make clean or distclean > >> > > >> > >> As long as config-devices.mak is not removed, > >> config-devices.mak.old has to be kept, too. > > > > Yes but you keep it around even after config-devices.mak > > is removed. > > > >> > - it is not removed on error properly as it is not > >> > a target of makefile > >> > so it seems easy to get into a situation where > >> > a corrupted file will be created and the only way > >> > to get rid of it would be by manual rm command. > >> > > >> > >> I don't think that this is a real world scenario. > >> The .old file is a simple copy of config-devices.mak. > > > > By the way, what if you really *do* want configuration that happens to > > exactly match the default at some point? There is no way to take that > > config and make it persistent, is there? With my approach, any edit of > > the file adding something will do. > > You can't make your cake and have it. > Your include file fails exactly in this very scenary: > > #include default-config > > local modifications > > You change default-config, and you also have a different configuration. > > I don't see any advantage at using includes instead of copy the file, > and implement include directive just make things more complex IMHO. > > >> > Instead, what I think we should do is make > >> > the generated file *almost empty* > >> > and then it is easy to detect user tweaking > >> > it without keeping more state. > >> > > >> > >> This is a matter of personal preferences. > >> Maybe other users who want to modify > >> config-devices.mak prefer to have a full > >> version where they can remove some lines > >> they don't need. > > > > IMO this encourages sloppiness, it is better to have a file which does > > 1. include default > > 2. change some values > > than have a full copy of said default and then try to figure out what > > did you change. If you want to look at the original, it is there. > > This build system is lossely bassed on kernel config files. And in the > kernel, once that you have your .config, it will never be overwritten. > > Both options have its advantages and disadvantages. > > I am looking at this patch, and was thinking about reordering the > comparisons, but I am still not sure that my approach is better than > this one. Will think a bit more about it and include this one or > propose something similar in spirit. > > Later, Juan.
IMO the really best approach is not to generate any files at all. This way we avoid confusion: if there is config file around, user created this file. But I don't care much, really. Whatever you do, please make sure that make defconfig itself does not print "run make defconfig", this is just silly. -- MST
