Kernel headers trouble

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 01:05:07PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
>On Tuesday 06 December 2005 10:13, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 03:49:11PM +0100, Tito wrote:
>> > I put thogether a simple script (attached) to check clashes in kernel
>> > headers.
>>
>> so why havent we just done a global sed 's:CONFIG_:BB_CONFIG_:g' yet ?
>> -mike
>
>1) In my case, I'm trying to migrate the CONFIG_ symbols to ENABLE_ symbols.  
>I wouldn't be against some other prefix if it was shorter to type.  (BB_ 
>works for me.  We've already got _FEATURE_ on most of the ones that aren't 
>applets.)

Rob, we are talking about *{,/*/}Config.in where we need BB_CONFIG as
opposed to the CONFIG_ we have now.
mkdep then will generate ENABLE_ out of the BB_CONFIG_ kconfig, see?

Nothing is holding us back to just s/CONFIG_/BB_CONFIG_/g right now,
just touching the three aforementioned applets is the minimum we should
do in the very near future (tito volunteered to do this earlier today).

>
>2) I'm also calling the CONFIG_ stuff leaking into normal #include space a 
>kernel header bug, since polluting the namespace like that is pretty sucky.  
>Most headers don't do that.  The ones that do are broken.  At the very least, 
>they should put one or more _ on the front of those.
>
>Rob
>-- 
>Steve Ballmer: Innovation!  Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word.
>I do not think it means what you think it means.
>_______________________________________________
>busybox mailing list
>busybox at busybox.net
>http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
>