Hello All,
My 2 cents: (I am NOT trying to start a flame war, although I understand how sensitive this subject is)
I think your appraoch (and that of kbuild, too) is fundamentally broken.
Maybe the configure structure, like u-boot has, that is so complex, so hard to customise, so error prone, and were relations between options is so unclear from the users perspective, is fundamentally broken ;-)))
I thought of it before to integrate Kconfig/kbuild and friends in U-boot, but I got the impression back then that it would have a very small chance of being ever accepted, so I did not invest much time in it...
So, I really like the kbuild/kconfig method to handle such a large amount of ifdefs options included the method of documenting the options. Hmm, that sounds like what u-boot-v2 is doing, and I wonder sometimes if it would exist at all if u-boot was using a different make structure? I think it is a pity that it separated in the first place, but that is a different discussion...
Fixing this on the Makefile level is at least one level to far up. If you really want a verbosity level of make that is between no options (normal case) and no output (except warnings/errors, as with -s), then this should be implemnted within make itself, as a new make option.Then you have the changes in one place only, and each and every software package can benefit from it. Modifying hundrets of Makefiles here and there and then again for each new software package makes absolutely no sense to me.
Maybe the linux makefile structure is a much better approach :-))) (in that case even weak-linking could work properly)
BTW: Kenneth is silent already for 5 days on this discussion, is he being scared off?
Kind Regards,
Remy