On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 05:34:18AM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Laura Abbott <labbott(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 11/10/2017 11:48 AM, Don Zickus wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Laura,
> >>
> >> As per our conversation, here is my pull request for the config changes:
> >>
https://pagure.io/fedora-kernel-dzickus.git rh_sync
> >>
> >>
> >> As part of an effort to foster better cross collaboration with internal
> >> Red
> >> Hat kernels, align the configs layout to match that kernel. This will
> >> allow
> >> Red Hat engineers to provide easier guidance on how to set various config
> >> options.
> >>
> >> In addition, the scripts that process the config options will migrate to
> >> the
> >> configs/ directory too. Future config workflows will stage all work in
> >> the
> >> configs/ area.
> >>
> >> A simple diff between the kernels will easily expose which config options
> >> are different. Reading the comments in the file provides guidance to
> >> Fedora
> >> to determine if that kernel should make a similar change or not. While
> >> the
> >> RH kernel stays internal, requested changes will be posted publicly for
> >> review with said reason.
> >>
> >> Rename debugconfig -> configs/base-debug
> >> Rename baseconfig -> configs/base-generic
>
> Any chance we could drop the base- in those names and just have
> configs/debug/
> configs/generic
>
> The base- is somewhat superfluous and is annoying for auto complete ;-)
It is, but was specifically added so kernels that want to do overrides like
RHEL could add their own custom configs/debug and configs/generic.
I am open to name changes but the goal was to use Fedora configs as a base
and then allow the ability to override through other directories.
I don't see how 's/base-//' would stop the ability for overrides? Do
you have an explicit example of how you see that working?
> So if you have a proposal to allow that, I am open to it. :-)