Subject: Re: Request for comments: let config(1) generate LKMs
To: Hiroyuki Bessho <bsh@NetBSD.org>
From: Quentin Garnier <email@example.com>
Date: 09/13/2007 15:11:42
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 06:55:32PM +0900, Hiroyuki Bessho wrote:
> I'd like some comments before I start further work on this. =20
It looks strangely familiar to me:
Heh, config(1) was still config(8) at the time.
FWIW, I've killed that code off my trees a while ago. I still think
it's a good idea, but it certainly doesn't deal with all the issues
involved when working with LKMs; it's only a way to compile said
modules. My patch dealt with some level of dependency though. I
believe this is where config(1) has its saying, despite what Martin
thinks: using all the attributes defined in files.* is a very fine-
grained but already existing tool to deal with module dependencies.
Quentin Garnier - firstname.lastname@example.org - cube@NetBSD.org
"You could have made it, spitting out benchmarks
Owe it to yourself not to fail"
Amplifico, Spitting Out Benchmarks, Hometakes Vol. 2, 2005.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----