On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 05:44:19PM +0000, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > After CML2 has proven itself in 2.5, I do plan to go back to Marcelo | > and lobby for him accepting it into 2.4, on the grounds that doing so | > will simplify his maintainance task no end. That's why I'm tracking | > both sides of the fork in the rulebase, so it will be an easy drop-in | > replacement for Marcelo as well as Linus. | | Thats somewhat impractical. You will break all the existing additional | configuration tools for the 2.4 stable tree that people expect to continue | to work | | Breaking them in 2.5 isnt a big issue, but breaking stable kernel trees | is a complete nono
Folks, have you forgotten that you're programmers? ESR, is it practical to have CML2 transcribe a CML1 config file? Then as part of the build-the-kernel-src-tarball, Marcelo or whoever's make target runs the transcriber. This would let people fetch a kernel and build with the old tools for personal hacking purposes which keeping the source config in CML2 which is cleans and more powerful. Kernel code _authors_ would need to write in CML2, but not kernel end users. -- Cameron Simpson, DoD#743 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/ A motorcycle is like a toothbrush. Everyone should have their own. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ kbuild-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
