[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Why don't we separate menuconfig from the kernel?
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:

> > menuconfig is just a little bit of the kbuild system which also
> > includes xconfig, config, gconfig, oldconfig, etc. menuconfig is just
> > a dialog based frontend to the kbuild system which consists of
> > configuration options, help texts, dependency info etc.
> Sure, that's what I mean. It's used for configuring the kernel, but
> other packages use it (well, some version) too. Example: busybox.

One of Linux's main problems is that all daemons that drive kernel core
functionality are cluttered over various separate projects. While this
allows for independent development, it's annoying if you need to hunt
down the various daemons (udev, autofs, hotplug, iproute, to name the
first that come to mind) only to find out the new version doesn't suit
your distro. I'd rather wish there was a standard kernel "daemons"

> There is no much point in keeping more than one copy. They are

Why should other projects that recycle kernel code impact how the kernel
itself is made.

Matthias Andree
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: 2005-09-19 09:18    [W:0.304 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site