On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 05:19:35PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: SNIP
> > but we need to add support for that first > > Thanks for explaining, that covers one of my peeves, i.e. the cset > comment wasn't clear, now it is a bit better, thanks! > > The other is for someone not interested in how the feature detection > works but then sees a warning about a feature not being available but > that feature doesn't appear on the followup summary of features that are > ON or OFF the build... > > So I think that when we think that some feature is experimental, for any > reason, for instance, because it is based on some feature that is not on > a released version of the library one needs to link against, to only > bother with trying to check if it is available and link against it if so > if it is _explicitely_ asked for. yep, but that'd be new feature, currently we check for everything and are able only to disable features via NO_* make variables > I.e. documentation should state that perf can have support for that > feature, but only if the user does: > > 1. installs the precisely described version that has what is needed. > > 2. Explicitely asks, in the make command line, for that feature. > > In the case at hand that would not even be a library release, but a > specific git commit on babeltrace's repo. > > That would be a speedup! ;-) > > - Arnaldo > > P.S. After all, we're not short on features, look at the ldd output... > Ok, I need to keep on merging the .config stuff, but even then, I guess > we need to have more of a dlopen approach to all those features, so that > one can install a package without dragging hell and its kitchen sink. yea, moving slowly towards to that step by step ;-) i rebased perf/build branch to your latest perf/core jirka -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
