Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Feb 1998 02:08:39 -0600 | From | Michael Elizabeth Chastain <> | Subject | Re: xconfig lossage: summary and suggestions (long) |
| |
Hi Regis,
mec> I think you just have to call word_eval here. regis> What is word_eval?
It's my function in new-config that expands $FOO constructions.
> if [ "$CONFIG_MCA" = "y" ]; then > tristate 'SMC Ultra MCA support' CONFIG_ULTRA > else > tristate 'SMC Ultra support' CONFIG_ULTRA > fi > > I see this as a variable redefinition. What is your opinion about it?
I don't have a problem with this. Perhaps I just don't see why it would be a problem.
mec> I do. A configuration tool is less useful if the user has to install mec> something else first. regis> Do you consider that a X-server plus TCL plus TK is not regis> "something else"?
That's right. xconfig is already part of the 2.1.XX product, so its requirements are already part of what people need to do gui-based configuration.
I believe very strongly in compatibility at the user level. Someone who types 'make xconfig' to configure his kernel today should be able to download the new mainline kernel, type 'make xconfig', and it still works, with zero no software. I am not willing to break this lightly.
> Agreed. We can have both of them. But the problem then is to decide > which back-end must be included into the mainstream distribution.
Both of them, of course, under different names.
> Perhaps Linus will refuse to have too much back-ends.
If it's ok with us, I think it will be ok with Linus. We are talking about a few hundred lines of code here for an xconfig back-end; code that doesn't even get compiled unless the user asks for it.
Regards,
Michael 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.rutgers.edu
| |