On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:28:03AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 2/8/07, Oleg Verych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 ____ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/