Thread View: gmane.linux.kernel
4 messages
4 total messages
Started by "Martin Fouts"
Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:53
RE: Why don't we separate menuconfig from the kernel?
Author: "Martin Fouts"
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:53
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:53
34 lines
1458 bytes
1458 bytes
I don't have a patch yet, but I've just spent a bit of time looking at how kbuild works, and I believe there is a fairly straightforward way to keep kbuild in the kernel tree but make it easy to split it out so that someone could use it as a separate tool. If this idea, appropriately modified, makes sense, I'll spend a bit of time to do a patch and set it up. The basic idea is that kbuild stays in the kernel source tree, but a simple script is used to grab a copy of it out of the tree. That copy is maintained as a separate "build/configuration" package, and the maintainer (yes, I'm volunteering) would keep the two versions in (near) sync. After a quick glance, it looks like one would want to copy Documentation/kbuild/* Scripts/kconfig/* Makefile To this new copy. The only real work to get started, it appears, and the reason why I'd rather have a discussion before I start, would be to split the toplevel Makefile up a bit, so that the 'pure kbuild' bits were moved into an include file. It's really that include file, not the toplevel Makefile that would need to be copied. I suggest doing this because most of the make-related knowledge about kbuild itself is in that Makefile, but non-kernel users would not want the kernel specific targets. I know of two other packages (busybox and ptxdist) that use kconfig now, and have been contemplating it for some of my projects, as well, so I'm interested enough to take the project on. Marty
Re: Why don't we separate menuconfig from the kernel?
Author: Sam Ravnborg
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 09:30
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 09:30
40 lines
1754 bytes
1754 bytes
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:53:55PM -0700, Martin Fouts wrote: > I don't have a patch yet, but I've just spent a bit of time looking at > how kbuild works, and I believe there is a fairly straightforward way to > keep kbuild in the kernel tree but make it easy to split it out so that > someone could use it as a separate tool. > > If this idea, appropriately modified, makes sense, I'll spend a bit of > time to do a patch and set it up. > > The basic idea is that kbuild stays in the kernel source tree, but a > simple script is used to grab a copy of it out of the tree. That copy > is maintained as a separate "build/configuration" package, and the > maintainer (yes, I'm volunteering) would keep the two versions in (near) > sync. > > After a quick glance, it looks like one would want to copy > > Documentation/kbuild/* > Scripts/kconfig/* > Makefile > > To this new copy. The only real work to get started, it appears, and > the reason why I'd rather have a discussion before I start, would be to > split the toplevel Makefile up a bit, so that the 'pure kbuild' bits > were moved into an include file. It's really that include file, not the > toplevel Makefile that would need to be copied. > > I suggest doing this because most of the make-related knowledge about > kbuild itself is in that Makefile, but non-kernel users would not want > the kernel specific targets. > > I know of two other packages (busybox and ptxdist) that use kconfig now, > and have been contemplating it for some of my projects, as well, so I'm > interested enough to take the project on. I'm a bit confused. Do you want to take a copy of kbuild or kconfig? kbuild is much more intiminate than kconfig althougth the latter has a few kernel only issues too. Sam
Re: Why don't we separate menuconfig from the kernel?
Author: Ian Campbell
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:55
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:55
15 lines
484 bytes
484 bytes
On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 12:36 +0200, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > What I'm thinking of is moving menuconfig or *config out of the > kernel so there is one well-defined external package. If you really think it is worthwhile you could start maintaining a package containing a copy of *config from the most recent kernel for all these other projects to use, that would reduce the number of copies to just 2, it would be a good start... Ian. -- Ian Campbell Void where prohibited by law.
Re: Why don't we separate menuconfig from the kernel?
Author: Krzysztof Halasa
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:36
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:36
11 lines
509 bytes
509 bytes
"Martin Fouts" <Martin.Fouts@palmsource.com> writes: > I don't have a patch yet, but I've just spent a bit of time looking at > how kbuild works, and I believe there is a fairly straightforward way to > keep kbuild in the kernel tree but make it easy to split it out so that > someone could use it as a separate tool. That is obvious and people already are doing that, what I'm thinking of is moving menuconfig or *config out of the kernel so there is one well-defined external package. -- Krzysztof Halasa
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads