Hello All, My 2 cents: (I am NOT trying to start a flame war, although I understand how sensitive this subject is)
> I think your appraoch (and that of kbuild, too) is fundamentally > broken. Maybe the configure structure, like u-boot has, that is so complex, so hard to customise, so error prone, and were relations between options is so unclear from the users perspective, is fundamentally broken ;-))) I thought of it before to integrate Kconfig/kbuild and friends in U-boot, but I got the impression back then that it would have a very small chance of being ever accepted, so I did not invest much time in it... So, I really like the kbuild/kconfig method to handle such a large amount of ifdefs options included the method of documenting the options. Hmm, that sounds like what u-boot-v2 is doing, and I wonder sometimes if it would exist at all if u-boot was using a different make structure? I think it is a pity that it separated in the first place, but that is a different discussion... > Fixing this on the Makefile level is at least one level to > far up. If you really want a verbosity level of make that is between > no options (normal case) and no output (except warnings/errors, as > with -s), then this should be implemnted within make itself, as a new > make option.Then you have the changes in one place only, and each and > every software package can benefit from it. Modifying hundrets of > Makefiles here and there and then again for each new software package > makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe the linux makefile structure is a much better approach :-))) (in that case even weak-linking could work properly) BTW: Kenneth is silent already for 5 days on this discussion, is he being scared off? Kind Regards, Remy _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
