On 15/07/2021 07:25, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 14.07.2021 18:17, Anthony PERARD wrote: >> --- a/xen/common/Kconfig >> +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig >> @@ -25,6 +25,9 @@ config GRANT_TABLE >> config HAS_ALTERNATIVE >> bool >> >> +config HAS_CHECKPOLICY >> + def_bool $(success,$(CHECKPOLICY) -h 2>&1 | grep -q xen) >> + > This is no different from other aspects of "Kconfig vs tool chain > capabilities" sent out last August to start a discussion about > whether we really want such. Besides Jürgen no-one cared to reply > iirc, which to me means no-one really cares one way or the other.
You know full well that upgrading Kconfig was specifically to be able to use this functionality, and you know full well that I firmly support using this mechanism, because we've had both of these arguments several times before. The absence of replies doesn't mean people agree with you, or even that they don't care. It either means people didn't read the email, or didn't have time to reply, or didn't feel like wasting time rehashing the same arguments yet again with no hope for progress. If you really insist on refusing to features specifically intended for the improvement of our build processes, then call a vote so we can be done with the argument for once and for all. ~Andrew
