Messages in this thread |  | | From | Wayne.Brown@altec ... | Date | Fri, 18 May 2001 17:52:05 -0500 | Subject | Re: [kbuild-devel] Re: CML2 design philosophy heads-up |
| |
On 05/18/2001 at 03:56:50 PM Mike Castle <dalgoda@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 03:04:43PM -0500, Wayne.Brown@altec.com wrote: >> 1. Some of us are perfectly satisfied with the existing tools and don't want >> them to be yanked out from under us. > >Then stay with 2.4.x >
Since doing kernel upgrades is my whole reason for using the tools, that's not a very helpful suggestion. It's a little like saying, "If you don't like the way the air smells, just stop breathing."
>> 2. Some of us have no interest in Python and don't like being forced to deal >> with installing/upgrading it just for CML2. > > >Some don't like installing/upgrading the following just for a kernel: > >gcc >binutils >modutils >mount >Not to mention netfilter.
I don't especially like upgrading these things, either, and don't do it unless I absolutely have to (that's why I'm still on egcs-2.91.66), but the kernel is important enough to be worth the trouble. If I have to use CML2 to move into 2.5.x, then I will. However, upgrading a programming language I don't use, just so I can replace a perfectly good tool with one I don't want, in order to do a job that's always been easy to accomplish with the existing tools... well, that seems a lot like a solution in search of a problem.
Fortunately, Alan's response about someone re-writing CML2 in C offers hope for at least part of the issue.
Wayne
- 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/
|  |