On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 06:29:03PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>
> > So I think that you and Roman are close to agreement, when Roman
> > has the library backend ready. Of course someone needs to do a
> > "reference implementation" with it also, but it doesn't need to
> > ship with the kernel.
>
> We ship BK documentation, so shipping a small QT app can't be that
> problematic. :)
> Creating the library isn't that difficult (kbuild is currently my
> problem here) and I'll still have to write some API documentation for it
> and some glue code to load the library.
Why don't you just separate the library from the kernel at all, making
it a similar package. We depend on a few external, kernel-specific
packages anyway, and depending on libkconfig wouldn't make the situation
worse. Instead people could keep their tools build one time around in
/usr/{local/,}bin (especially important with qt-monsters :)) and if
there is a change in the language Documentation/Changes would get
updated to the new required version and people had to update it,
similar to the gcc situation for a new development kernel.
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
kbuild-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
