On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 06:30:45PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:18:38AM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > > As far as CML2 versus an mconfig-based solution, I am tilted towards CML2, > > as it is simply a better language. I would be happy with either choice > > if Linus made one of those choices. I would be unhappy if 2.6/3.0 > > continued to ship with Configure/menuconfig/xconfig. > > Indepenand of wether 2.6 will use CML1 or CML2 I hope it won't ship with > the actual config tool. It's so much nicer to have mconfig compiled once > in /usr/bin instead of compiling menuconfig all the time in the tree. > > No to mention it's much easier to propagate bug fixes this way.. >
If the configure system is outside of the kernel, you have the possibility of requiring newer user-space utilities as a stable kernel changes over time... _______________________________________________ kbuild-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
