From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 16:27:05 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 3/3] New -update-last-config-fragment target in pkg-kconfig.mk In-Reply-To: <20180731154948.GB8537@scaer> References: <20180730155153.24091-1-m.patzlaff@pilz.de> <20180730155153.24091-4-m.patzlaff@pilz.de> <20180730234643.34315d11@windsurf> <20180731154948.GB8537@scaer> Message-ID: <20180814162705.505476fe@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, Adding Arnout and Peter in Cc, in case they want to give their opinion on the patch series. On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 17:49:48 +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > I would just suggest that we do not add any new rule, but trying to > update the defconfig when there are fragments would fail as it currently > does, but also would display the delta if there is one. I.e.: > > $ make linux-menuconfig > [change stuff] > $ make linux-update-defconfig > Unable to perform linux-update-defconfig when fragment files are set > Configuration changes that you want to propagate to one of the fragments: > -CONFIG_FOO=y > +# CONFIG_BAR is unset > linux/linux.mk:511: recipe for target 'linux-update-defconfig' failed > make[1]: *** [linux-update-defconfig] Error 1 I think we could do that in *addition* to having a new rule. Indeed, when you know what you're doing, having to run something that doesn't make sense ("make linux-update-defconfig") and which causes a failure is a bit silly. I'd rather run "make linux-diff-config" (or whatever name we chose). Marcel, do you think you could rework your patch series to go in the direction of showing a diff rather than arbitrarily adjusting the last fragment ? Thanks! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com