Kernel headers trouble
Rob Landley
rob at landley.net
Tue Dec 6 22:32:19 UTC 2005
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 14:08, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> 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.
_We_ aren't broken. Their kernel headers are. (Admittedly it's a common
mistake we could avoid. But the bug isn't ours.)
> mkdep then will generate ENABLE_ out of the BB_CONFIG_ kconfig, see?
mkdep doesn't generate ENABLE. The makefile generates ENABLE via sed. CONFIG
and ENABLE are different _kinds_ of symbols. ENABLE is always present and
its value says what it is. CONFIG's value is irrelevant, its presence is
what is tested for.
> 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).
Actually, tito volunteered to switch them over to ENABLE, which seems the
thing to do.
CONFIG_TR, CONFIG_WATCHDOG, and what was the third?
Rob
--
Steve Ballmer: Innovation! Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
More information about the busybox
mailing list