lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: CML2 design philosophy heads-up
At 04:22 PM 5/13/01 +0200, you wrote:
>I've said before on these lists that one of the purposes of
>CML2's single-apex tree design is to move the configuration
>dialog away from low-level platform- specific questions towards
>higher-level questions about policy or intentions.
>
>Or to put another way: away from hardware, towards capabilities.

Can I just say I think this is the right approach, overall. Those who say
it's not right to cripple those doing weird things to support the masses
are right, but on the other hand very many kernel compiles will be
relatively small deviations from a fairly standard setup (e.g. enabling or
disabling NAT) and in my opinion life's too short to spend learning about
configuring the latest kernel.

Specifically:

1. Deriving common cases from simple assertions is Good for many people,
making it less likely they will end up with a bad kernel through oversight.

2. Allowing an expert mode that allows you to change each & every option
allows those with specific needs to configure them (i.e. you need know
whether a user made a choice to include X rather than it being a
derivation, and this must be stored in the config database along with the
actual choice)

3. I would like to be able to start off configuring a kernel with a list of
statements like:

- an Asus motherboard
- a Pentium III
- an Adaptec AHA2400 SCSI controller
- IDE disks

and see what else must be specified. I.e. I don't want to have to search to
tell the config program what I know; I want to tell it what I know, digest
that and then let it figure out what else it needs answers to.

-- extra bonus section: Obviously, sometimes, you are compiling for another
machine, but it would be great if the config could be asked to get at least
some of this list of items from the current hardware/system (using lspci
and friends).

It would be nice if it then printed a summary (in English, not config-ese)
what has been configured, so I can double-check.

4. It would be neat to have a quick way of taking a config file from an
older kernel. Then the config program to be able to tell what config items
have changed/are new/etc and then have a menu containing just these items.
You could then upgrade kernels by looking through this list, safe in the
knowledge that everything else is already OK.

5. One final, general plea: Please can we have a sensible menu structure
for the config options. The current (for me, 2.4.1) menu structure is just
plain irritating, because it is not organised in an understandable (for me)
way... If you want me to help define things further, I'm willing.

HTH,

Ruth
--

Ruth
Ivimey-Cook ruthc@sharra.demon.co.uk
Technical
Author, ARM Ltd ruth.ivimey-cook@arm.com

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:53    [W:0.203 / U:6.968 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site