[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Disgusted with kbuild developers
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> The first thing I heard, from mec two years ago, was "the CML1 code
> base is not salvageable". This was then and is now the unanimous opinion of
> the kbuild team. Not just mine; in fact, they concluded it before
> I entered the picture.
> I have seen nothing since to make me change that opinion.

So Alan Cox's opinion counts as nothing?
mconfig counts as nothing?

Anyway, I think you are missing the point. Sure, CML1 has problems, but
is your solution the one we want for the kernel? I do not think that is
clear yet. And bragging about a system's use in production tells us
little about its suitability for most kernel developers, or whether
you've addressed the global dependencies problem, or the syntax problem,

I'm sure CML2 configurator is whiz-bang, but it needs to do basic stuff
like having "make oldconfig" work exactly like it does in the current
config system.


Jeff Garzik | "Why is it that attractive girls like you
Building 1024 | always seem to have a boyfriend?"
MandrakeSoft | "Because I'm a nympho that owns a brewery?"
| - BBC TV show "Coupling"
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.217 / U:0.320 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site