On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Roman Zippel wrote:
Linus, do you have any interest in merging it in the near future? If
not, what's missing?
I'm not super-excited about this, partly because of the brouhaha last time
around on this issue.
This has reasonably distributed config files, and puts the help with the
config entry where it belongs. Good. It also makes do with just standard
unix tools, which is going to avoid one particular rat-hole, and which
makes me at least understand the code. Also good.
But the fact that xconfig depends on QT is going to make some people hate
it. And I haven't actually heard much _about_ this all, because
(apparently as usual), all the discussion is held in a small world of its
own.
In other words, I really think this needs to pass the linux-kernel stink
test. Will Al Viro rip your throat out? Will it generate more positive
feedback than death threats?
Some things made me go eww (but on the whole details):
- I'd prefer the Config.in name, since this has nothing to do with
building, and everything to do with configuration.
- I assume that the scripts are generated from the current Config.in
and Config.help files, and it would make me slightly happier to see the
diff as a automatic script + diff to fix it up, just for doc
purposes.
- that lkc name has got to go. Three-letter acronyms are not good. Of
course it's linux kernel, the whole tree it sits in is linux
kernel. Call it config or something obvious, please..
- Quick testing showed that the first thing I tried didn't work: giving a
? as answer to the first question did _not_ result in help. make
oldconfig seemed to do the right thing, though.
Let the flames begin.
Linus
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
___
kbuild-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
