I suppose a polite title for me would be "maintainer emiritus" of make config, make menuconfig, and make xconfig.
I'm in favor of abandoning the current tools because: It's 3x maintenance to have 3 parsers for the same language. It's difficult to do good syntax checking in scripts/Configure and menuconfig. menuconfig in particular is too ugly to live. A company which considers Linux its #1 enemy may own the copyright to "scripts/Configure". I don't know what kind of marketing or legal play they could make, but it would surely be hostile to Linux. I'm in favor of CML2 in particular because: ESR has designed a clean theory, which the configuration process really needs after ten years of ad hoc extensions. ESR has done a lot of grunt work to turn a particular idea into a viable implementation. It's hard to get that work done. As far as the Python issue goes, I believe that the kernel documentation just needs to state clearly what tools (and what versions) are needed to build a kernel. If other people prefer a C implementation, then CML2 (the language) is amenable to a C implementation, so they can write one. 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. Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "love without fear" _______________________________________________ kbuild-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
