On 21-Jul-2004 Brooks Davis wrote: > You can have my simple flat file kernel config when you pry it from > my cold, dead hands and I know a number of other develoeprs share > this viewpoint. All my experiences with the linux visual kernel > config tool have been annoying and I've got friends with more > expierence with it that have much less kind things to say.
Well, the idea is not to replace the current use of a single, flat kernel config file, only to ease its creation. The end result would be essentially the same, although with a slightly different arrangement of items, of course. > That said, so long as it doesn't impose too much developer burden, > an improved set of backend files that did a better job of handling > dependencies and knew which options where relevent given the > configured set of devices could be useful. Yes, I think it's an interesting area for exploration. > There is a valid question of what a depenency means. For instance, > you can't really have IP networking without lo(4) (there's a null > pointer derefrence if you try), but since you can load it as a > module, should you have to compile it in? Hmm, good point. This will obviously require some careful thinking. As I told Julian Elischer just now in another (private) reply, I don't have even the first sketches of such a reorganization on the drawing board. I was curious to see how such an idea would be received first. If there's a lot of resistance (which I could certainly understand), I won't even bother. But if there's an interest...I'd certainly be willing to invest some time in it and see what I could cook up. So far, no one's yelling "blasphemer!" or anything. But then it's still early. We'll see. :-) -- Conrad J. Sabatier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- "In Unix veritas" _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
