[cc: trimmed]
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 10:18:06AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Personally I don't care about Config dependency checking... they are
not modified often enough to affect me, and even if they did, dependency
checking based on changes to Config files can get ugly, AFAICS. I just
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 01:32:11PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
The kernel is written for people with a clue. For people without a
clue, they should use a vendor kernel or ESR's Aunt-Tillie-friendly system.
Dumbing-down the kernel is never the right answer.
Well I'm not talking about
Roman Zippel wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Some things made me go eww (but on the whole details):
- I'd prefer the Config.in name, since this has nothing to do with
building, and everything to do with configuration.
Fine with me.
(jgarzik, I think you're overruled
Roman Zippel wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Well, my basic preference is
* something other than Config.new (the original name in your config system)
* something other than Config.in
I think it is a mistake to name a totally different format the same name
as an older
On 2002.10.09 Randy.Dunlap wrote:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Brendan J Simon wrote:
| Roman Zippel wrote:
|
| But the fact that xconfig depends on QT is going to make some people hate
| it.
|
...
| This is a difficult one. GUI's toolkits are a bit of religion
| (fundamentalist types too).
|
...
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Peter Samuelson wrote:
| [Roman Zippel]
| The problem is that the config syntax will continue to evolve and
| currently I prefer to keep the library close to the matching config
| files.
| I think I can keep the basic structure constant, but new options will be
| added,
Brendan J Simon wrote:
Simple and boring but how about Config2.in or Config-2.in ???
no offense intended, but:
ug...
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
| On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 12:28:44PM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
|
| The kernel would still have the text-mode configurator.
| The way I read the original post by Christoph Hellwig - nope.
| If the kernel config library is outside the kernel then the
|
Linus Torvalds wrote:
So instead: how about just Config for the main per-directory
configuration file, with sub-config's being Config.3c5xx and
Config.rrunner.
I like it. I'm glad Sam mentioned sub-configs such as Config.3c5xx,
that's something that was discussed a while ago [and
Roman Zippel wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Which implies that the equivalent of source drivers/net/Config*
(wildcarding) in Roman's system would be useful. Or maybe source
drivers/net and it knows that when given a directory it should scan for
all Config* files in
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
| On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
|
| stick with TCL/TK, like xconfig currently uses ?
|
| Too ugly. I actually think QT is a fine choice, I just suspect that it's
| going to cause political issues.
|
| My favourite approach by far is to
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
[cc: trimmed]
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 10:18:06AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Personally I don't care about Config dependency checking... they are
not modified often enough to affect me, and even if they did, dependency
checking based on changes to Config files can get
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
But there is a good reason why they do it.
Take a look at dirvers/video/Config.in for example.
See the size of the big if's. They span several pages if not the whole file.
Why they do this is simple. Only check for PCI once, and group all
PCI stuff there.
With the syntax
13 matches
Mail list logo
