Re: [PATCHv2] kconfig: add some Kconfig env variables to make help

[Nicolas Schier <n.schier@avm.de>]

On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 01:33:16PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (24/03/01 00:35), Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > >   "I am interested only in these. I do not care about the rest,
> > >
> > > It's "I *do NOT know* what the rest do".  I cannot document something
> > > that I have no knowledge of, can I?  So as a reasonable start I added
> > > only those that I'm familiar with (and I have explicitly stated that
> > > in previous emails), and I disagree with the "bad attitude" label.
> > 
> > 
> > You were aware of:
> > 
> >  - several env variables are listed in the document
> >  - your patch would introduce a new "inconsistency"
> >  - somebody else would need to make efforts to solve it
> 
> OK.
> 
> > > So the rational for that was that people run "make help" and find
> > > out about new build targets, for instance, but there is no way for
> > > people to find out about new Kconfig features (and yes, we are talking
> > > "new features" here) that are controlled by env variables.  We need
> > > to do something about it, don't you agree?
> > 
> > Disagree.
> > 
> > I maintain the entire Kconfig, not like you only caring about
> > a particular feature.
> > 
> > If you add only two in help, I have no idea about
> > what it will look like in the end.
> > I am not convinced that it will be in good shape.
> > So, it is reasonable for me to reject it.
> 
> Yes, OK.  I wasn't talking about this patch in particular at that
> point, I was more curious whether you agreed that we need to document
> in some way those vars in `make help` or not.  If you see value in
> documenting them then I can sit down and try to come up with v3 that
> will (in one way or another) give a simple "help" description for
> each of Kconfig's vars.

Perhaps it might be a compromise to let 'make help' point to the
kbuild/kconfig documentation?

Kind regards,
Nicolas