Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:56:24 -0700 | From | "Randy.Dunlap" <> | Subject | Re: Why don't we separate menuconfig from the kernel? |
| |
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:46:35 +0200 Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2005 19:16:33 +0200, Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > A number of packages (e.g., busybox) use some, more or less broken, > > version of menuconfig. Would it make sense to move menuconfig to > > a separate well-defined package? > > > > What exactely is it you want to make a sepperate package? > > menuconfig is just a little bit of the kbuild system which also > includes xconfig, config, gconfig, oldconfig, etc. menuconfig is just > a dialog based frontend to the kbuild system which consists of > configuration options, help texts, dependency info etc. > > menuconfig uses `dialog` to present its menus and dialog boxes (using > ncurses), and if you want to build something else using dialog, then > that already exists as a sepperate program that has nothing to do with > kbuild. On my system (Slackware) it's installed as /bin/dialog and > comes from the pkgtools-10.2.0-i486-5 package. > > I don't think it makes much sense to split the parts of kbuild that > make up menuconfig out into a standalone thing. kbuild (and thus > menuconfig) has little use outside the kernel. The `dialog` tool is a > different matter, but that is already a sepperately developed thing ( > http://hightek.org/dialog/ ) .
OTOH, Christoph Hellwig used to maintain 'mconf' out-of-tree and it worked decently, so it seems not a big deal to so do.
--- ~Randy You can't do anything without having to do something else first. -- Belefant's Law - 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/
| |