Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:19:31 -0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com> Cc: Gerhard Sittig <Gerhard.Sittig@gmx.net>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src Makefile.inc1 Message-ID: <200101240119.f0O1JV472863@mobile.wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <24959.980281806@winston.osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jordan Hubbard wrote: > Without knowing much more specifically what you mean by "config(8) > output reporting", it's impossible to answer this question. It could > either be unwonted noise or useful information, depending on just how > much and of what nature this information is. My gut reaction is that > config(8) shouldn't say anything unless you ask it to, however, and > there are already provisions made for passing in CONFIGARGS so if you > wanted to add a -v flag, that might fly without too much contraversy. No, the 'error reporting' is that when config gets a fatal error it actually exits with a non-zero status instead of blissfully blazing through and building a broken kernel config. If you have a syntax error in your config file, it should now cause 'make buildkernel' to stop and report the syntax error instead of pressing on and building the kernel anyway (usually with large bits missing). config doesn't say anything much if everything is ok. There is no need for -v. When it does have something to say, it was neglecting to do an exit(1) because it was assuming that a human could read the output. The problem was that 'make buildkernel' did an immediate 'make depend' which scrolled off any error messages from config(8), leading to foot shooting. > On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 15:26 -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > jkh 2001/01/22 15:26:19 PST > > > > Modified files: (Branch: RELENG_4) > > . Makefile.inc1 > > Log: > > MFC: kernel time reporting. > > Is there a need for config(8) output reporting? That's what I'm > asking myself from reading the latest thread on the subject. > > Although buildkernel is the "official" method of building a > kernel, it is said to suffer from information hiding. Will > collecting and summarizing config(8)'s output be easier than > converting all warnings to errors or not suggesting to use the > buildkernel target any longer? > > I'm aware that there's not much point in building with a maybe > damaged or dangerous configuration and reporting the problem > afterwards. And admittedly I'm absolutely ignorant when it comes > to the tool chain and build process. But I thought this could be > a quick way of providing the information and yet stick with the > convenient and officially supported target and have the best of > both worlds until a better solution becomes available. > > > virtually yours 82D1 9B9C 01DC 4FB4 D7B4 61BE 3F49 4F77 72DE DA76 > Gerhard Sittig true | mail -s "get gpg key" Gerhard.Sittig@gmx.net > -- > If you don't understand or are scared by any of the above > ask your parents or an adult to help you. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200101240119.f0O1JV472863>