[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
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 format... even
Roman Zippel 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 format... even config.in would be better than
Hi,
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Brendan J Simon wrote:
As you can see there are soo many guis to choose/use and everyone
has there favourite. I suggest that the real work be done outside of
the GUI program. ie. seperate GUI and application guts as much as
possible. I would use python as the
Hi,
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, J.A. Magallon wrote:
stick with TCL/TK, like xconfig currently uses ?
or is it not sufficient? or just too ugly?
What is linux kernel conf written in ?
- perl: use perl-gtk (I think there is also a perl-qt)
- python: use py-gtk...
Use whatever the language
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 actually not ship anything graphical
with the kernel at all,
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
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
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 02:01:50PM +0200, 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.
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
Another suggestion about naming:
Take for example drivers/net:
cat Config.* | wc = 2149 lines
A bit a structure could be needed here.
Net.conf = Name equals directory with upper-case first letter
- Cover the whole directory, and either
Hi,
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
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.
The problem is that
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
ls rrunner*
should show me not only the implementation [.c + .h] but also
the configuration.
I agree with you, but only if we _always_ have one config file per driver.
Which is not necessarily the wrong thing to do.
But as long as most drivers
[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, so IMO it's more likely that a front end works with a
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 11:47:16AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
ls rrunner*
should show me not only the implementation [.c + .h] but also
the configuration.
I agree with you, but only if we _always_ have one config file per driver.
Which
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
text-mode versions will fail as well.
Recall that the
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Roman Zippel wrote:
Linus, do you have any interest in merging it in the near future? If
not, what's missing?
I'm not super-excited about this, partly because of the brouhaha last time
around on this issue.
This has reasonably distributed config files, and puts the help
28 matches
Mail list logo
