Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mk: allow updates to build config on make install

["Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 12:56 PM
> To: Richardson, Bruce
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mk: allow updates to build config on make
> install
> 
> 
> You would like to have a synchronization of your generated .config file with the
> configuration template. But it's not possible for the simple reason that you may
> have modified your .config file so there is no simple correlation with the original
> template.
> 

Would you agree then that the ideal state matrix for a make install should probably be:
* template unmodified, config unmodified - No issue - regenerate or not as best suits the code
* template unmodified, config modified - don't regenerate, keep local config
* template modified, config modified - flag an error, since continuing compile with old config on new code will lead to undefined build results, since config template changes rarely occur without code changes to go with them.
* template modified, config unmodified - regenerate new config, overwriting old one, for the same reason above. [Optionally print out message stating that the config is being regenerated]

Does this seem reasonable to you? The last case is the common case for me in development, as I've had multiple build errors and unexpected build results in the last week alone due to config template changes not propagating as I switch development branches to work on different features.

/Bruce