[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

    [sorry for the messed up threading, I could not figure out how to make
    gmail use in-relp-to]

    > The point I'm slowly getting to is that I would actually love to have
    > *distro* Kconfig-files, where the distribution would be able to say
    > "These are the minimums I *require* to work". So we'd have a "Distro"
    > submenu, where you could pick the distro(s) you use, and then pick
    > which release, and we'd have something like

    As someone working on one of the smaller distributions (Arch), I think
    it would be even better if rather than having "distro" entries, we'd
    have "application" entries. I.e., entries for applications that have
    specific kernel requirements/suggestions (udev, systemd, upstart,
    bootchart, pulseaudio, networkmanager, etc). If applications have soft
    requirements, they could have sub-entries explaining the benefit of
    enabling each.

    In most cases, what a distro needs depends just on what applications
    they ship, so you'd get the distro entries almost for free (fedora
    selects systemd, udev, ...).

    As was pointed out by someone else in this thread, it might easily
    happen that applications change their kernel requirements without the
    packagers noticing, or at least without the kernel packager being
    told. If it had been possible for applications to ship drop-in Kconfig
    files that they would install to a certain location, and the kernel
    would simply pick them up, that would put the responsibility of
    maintaining these things in the hands of the people who know the best
    (the application developers).



     \ /
      Last update: 2012-07-18 12:41    [W:0.022 / U:12.456 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site