Re: [RFC 1/4] CONFIG_STABLE: Define it

David Miller
2007-05-31T09:03:19Z

From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 10:54:36 +0200

> b) Of course nobody wants STABLE=n. :-) How about:
>
> config RELEASE
> bool "Build for release"
> help
> If the kernel is declared as a release build here, then
> various checks that are only of interest to kernel development
> will be omitted.

Agreed :-)

>
> c) A drawback of this general option is, it's hard to tell what will be
> omitted in particular.

In that sense it is similar to EMBEDDED, but I still think there
is high value to this, I can already think of several things I
want to put under this which are only noise I want to see during
development periods.