Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 4 Dec 2001 11:18:38 -0600 | From | Michael Elizabeth Chastain <> | Subject | Re: [kbuild-devel] Converting the 2.5 kernel to kbuild 2.5 |
| |
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:mec@shout.net> "love without fear" - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |