On Friday 07 November 2008 20:27, Cathey, Jim wrote:
> The settings that are likely to please the least knowledgeable
> BB user, in other words. Once you know more about what you
> really need, you're likely to abandon any prepackaged config
> anyway.
>
> But there probably needs to be a central vision of what
> defconfig is and is not, one owner of record. He can take
> opinions, like this one. PAM and DEBUG are pretty uncontroversial,
> but whether certain more obscure BB features were on or off
> for defconfig would be where the central vision comes into
> play, rather than endless wrangling over it.
Why not? "Endless" would be bad, by "wrangling", a.k.a.
discussion, is good, even if sometimes it is somewhat hot.
Nobody can ever be right all the time,
and even more, as soon as one starts to think he is
more clever than the most people, the sooner
we all are to witness
"Yet Another Asshole Maintainer Playing God" syndrome.
I've met a number of these in our Open Source world.
I sure do not want to be caught being one.
> The charter for
> defconfig, however, should be well documented.
It is now in scripts/defconfig's header.
I propose the following plan:
(1) if you think the "what is defconfig" rules neede to be changed,
mail your proposal for new comment in scripts/defconfig's header.
and/or
(2) if you think something needs to be added/removed
from scripts/defconfig in order to confrom to these rules.
--
vda
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
