lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:53    [W:0.024 / U:1.428 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site