Re: + search-a-little-harder-for-mkimage.patch added to -mm tree

[Oleg Verych <olecom@flower.upol.cz>]

On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:28:03AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 2/8/07, Oleg Verych <olecom@flower.upol.cz> wrote:
> >proposition is to substitute:
> >     "$(CONFIG_SHELL) $(MKIMAGE)"
> >with
> >     "mkimage"
> 
> this isnt a one-to-one change ... let's look at the typical
> mkimage-missing scenario ...

You are interested in presents of `mkimage', but yet we discussing its
missing, or "Error -> Don't care" behavior.

uImage, as i can compare with other *final* targets, like bzImage on PC,
must be made in case of `make uImage', or if default rule depends on
it. Thus, if it fails it, must be error. It doesn't matter what cause
it, and what message was printed:

> with mkuboot.sh you'd get output like:
> ...
>  UIMAGE  arch/blackfin/boot/vmImage
> "mkimage" command not found - U-Boot images will not be built
>  Building modules, stage 2.
> ...
> 
> with mkimage you'd get output like:
> ...
>  UIMAGE  arch/blackfin/boot/vmImage
> /bin/sh: mkimage: command not found
> make[1]: *** [arch/blackfin/boot/vmImage] Error 127
> make: *** [vmImage] Error 2

In this example `uImage' is required by final target, e.g.

,-*-
|all: prepare uImage modules_install
|	while things; do them; done
`-*-

> so while you could change all the Makefile's to insert - to ignore
> *all* failures, without the script, you loose the ability to only
> ignore "binary missing" errors

So, are we ignoring our primary (default) goal?

OK, as you wish. As for me it's a plain bloat, but i have neither one
for-embedded setup to propose non-bloating change for _you_ (:.

> -mike
____