[PATCH] scripts: create kernel configuration upgrade script

[Gio]

Sorry to hijack into this thread but about having a more friendly way to 
configure the kernel consistently across versions I wrote this little 
utility which I sue to configure both Linux Kernel and OpenWrt 
programmatically in a way which make it very very easy to upgrade versions

https://gitlab.com/g10h4ck/kconfig-utils

I have researched quite a bit into this topic because I need to deal 
with kconfig based stuff in many places, and finally implemented this 
which is quite sustainable even for one single person

A side note is that it seems quite dumb and frustrating to me that 
KConfig doesn't support a way to configure the things programmatically 
by it self, when it already support a way to do that from an interactive 
menu which is probably much more cumbersome to expose a CLI to just 
set/unset what is needed and report an error if something goes wrong... 
(well the tool i have implemented does just that)

Cheers

Gio


On 2024-03-24 20:00, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 07:56:01PM +0100, Stijn Segers wrote:
>> Op zondag 3 maart 2024 om 15:24:50 -08:00:00 schreef Elliott Mitchell
>> <ehem+openwrt at m5p.com>:
>>> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:16:41 -0800
>>>
>>> Create a script for automating kernel version changes.  This
>>> generates a pair of commits which cause history to remain attached to
>>> all versioned configuration files.
>>>
>>> Crucially this makes `git blame` work without needing
>>> --find-copies-harder, which is too slow for routine use.  This also
>>> updates *everything*, which greatly simplifies rebasing patches
>>> which effect multiple devices.
>>>
>>> Credit to Christian Marangi who knew of the technique:
>>> <https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2023-October/041672.html>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Elliott Mitchell <ehem+openwrt at m5p.com>
>>
>> Is there a way to bump a specific target to a new kernel with your
>> script? It doesn't look like it, but I might be mistaken. Would it be a
>> lot of work to integrate that? With the shell equivalent being merged,
>> I can understand any reluctance to adding this functionality, but it's
>> worth asking.
> As originally written, no.  I see significant advantages to that approach
> and it really is starting to look like the best balance.
>
> To add the ability to handle a single target, near trivial.  To add the
> ability to do multiple target(s), very simple.  To do this efficiently,
> still fairly simple.
>
> It does seem this list has become useless for patch submission, so it has
> been brought onto GitHub:
>
> https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/14907
>
>