Re: [RFC v2 0/2] add kconfirm

[Julian Braha]

On 5/13/26 16:22, Nicolas Schier wrote:
> I guess the github branch is expected to work out of the box, but on my arm64
> system this fails with:
> 
>     kconfirm$ make -j8 kconfirm
>     error: no matching package named `env_logger` found
>     location searched: crates.io index
>     required by package `kconfirm-lib v0.9.0 (/data/kbuild/kbuild-fixes/kconfirm/scripts/kconfirm/kconfirm-lib)`
>     As a reminder, you're using offline mode (--offline) which can sometimes cause surprising resolution failures, if this error is too confusing you may wish to retry without the offline flag.
>     make[2]: *** [Makefile:17: kconfirm] Error 101
>     make[1]: *** [kconfirm/Makefile:2244: kconfirm] Error 2
>     make: *** [Makefile:248: __sub-make] Error 2
>     [exit code 2]

Thanks for giving it a shot! I will look into this.

> and if 'kconfirm' does not need a .config file, you want to add 'kconfirm' to
> the list of 'no-dot-config-targets' in top-level Makefile.
> 
> 
> FTR: the 'kconfirm' and 'kconfirmclean' targets need some love: both do not
> really integrate in kbuild, yet: 'kconfirm' is not working with out-of-source
> builds (O=...), 'kconfirmclean' should not be required if 'make clean' is
> supported correctly, and 'make mrproper' removes the whole scripts/kconfirm
> tree due to the change in 'scripts/Makefile'.  (Tested?)

Also thank you for the makefile feedback, this is exactly what I was
looking for.

> The large amount of changes has been mentioned often enough;  even if all the
> vendored dependencies could be dropped, I am not convinced yet, that it is a
> good idea to maintain kconfirm in-tree due to its project size.

It's true, even though kconfirm only imports a few packages and is
2,000 LoC itself, once you consider the transitive dependencies, it
really adds up.

I'm currently trying to shrink the dependency tree as much as I
can, e.g. taking advantage of expected system packages, as was suggested
by previous reviewers.
> IMO, we need at least someone who steps up for maintaining kconfirm and
> registers in a dedicated MAINTAINERS entry.  (My own rust knowledge is not good
> enough for appropriate review, I can only offer some initial testing and
> frequent use when it is working/integrated.)

I will add myself to the MAINTAINERS for this. These RFCs are only the
beginning for kconfirm, not the finishing of it. My ultimate goal is to
be able to detect _all misusage_ of kconfig, while keeping zero false
alarms. I haven't even added the SMT solving that is needed for
path-sensitive analysis and detecting unmet dependency bugs.

Thanks again for your review!

- Julian Braha