From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754941Ab2GMWrQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jul 2012 18:47:16 -0400 Received: from mail.lang.hm ([64.81.33.126]:55002 "EHLO bifrost.lang.hm" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752096Ab2GMWrO (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jul 2012 18:47:14 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:46:56 -0700 (PDT) From: david@lang.hm X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: Jesper Juhl cc: Linus Torvalds , Dave Jones , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Ubuntu Kernel Team , Debian Kernel Team , OpenSUSE Kernel Team , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Jesper Juhl wrote: > We are going to end up with a million+ (or something like that) "config > " options that are going to have to be kept up-to-date > regularly... > Do we really want that? > Maybe we do, maybe we don't - I'm not saying anything either way - just > pointing it out. > > I like the general idea - let a user pick the "make my distro work" option > and then tweak from there. But, with hundreds (thousands?) of distroes out > there, is it realy doable? Will we be able to keep things updated > properly? this needs to be more like 'make install' where the build system doesn't have specifics for every distro, but instead refrences a separate file that's provided in the same place by every distro, ideally separate from the kernel itself. David Lang