On 30.01.2023 13:27, Julien Grall wrote: > On 12/01/2023 16:52, Jan Beulich wrote: >> It was additionally suggested that, for a better user experience, unmet >> dependencies which are known to result in build failures (which at times may >> be >> hard to associate back with the original cause) would be re-checked by >> Makefile >> based logic, leading to an early build failure with a comprehensible error >> message. Personally I'd prefer this to be just warnings (first and foremost >> to >> avoid failing the build just because of a broken or stale check), but I can >> see >> that they might be overlooked when there's a lot of other output. > > If we wanted the Makefile to check the available features, then I would > prefer an early error rather than warning. That said... > >> In any event >> we may want to try to figure an approach which would make sufficiently sure >> that >> Makefile and Kconfig checks don't go out of sync. > > ... this is indeed a concern. How incomprehensible would the error be if > we don't check it in the Makefile?
That'll depend on the particular feature / functionality, and might range from very obvious and easy to very well obfuscated. Jan
