Re: mainlining min-configs...

[Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>]

On Tuesday 10 June 2008 13:51:23 Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 09:30:04PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:18:30AM -0700, Tim Bird wrote:
> > > Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >...
> > >
> > > > You need both, and ideally constantly done by the same person against
> > > > Linus' tree, -next and -mm.
> > > >
> > > > Where to get your minimal configs from at the start is just a small
> > > > thing at the beginning - don't underestimate the required manual work
> > > > that will have to be done each week.
> > >
> > > This is probably why I haven't signed up for this myself previously.
> > > I'd be interested in finding out the rate at which defconfigs
> > > bitrot in mainline.  My experience is that usually a 'make oldconfig'
> > > will produce something usable.  But maybe that wouldn't be as
> > > effective with a minconfig?
> > >...
> >
> > Someone has to run the 'make oldconfig' for all configs...
> >
> > And no, you cannot get that completely automated.
>
> When I get my kconfig patchset polished you will be able to do:
>
> make K=my_mini_config allnoconfig

So you're renaming KCONFIG_ALLNOCONFIG then?

> Thus selecting 'no' for all new symbols in an automated fashion.
> I know that in a few cases 'no' is the wrong answer but in the
> 99% of the cases 'no' is perfectly valid.

For a "make miniconfig", warnings should be errors.  (Attempts to set unknown 
symbols are an error with a miniconfig, the operation should exit with a 
nonzero error code.)  Also, all the stuff allnoconfig puts to stdout 
shouldn't be there for miniconfig, only the stuff it writes to stderr right 
now should show up.

I think I did more than that, but I'd have to look at my old patches...

Rob
-- 
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
  - Ken Thompson.