Hi,
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> Today's kconfig was proposed and accepted in a very unpleasant
> circumstances, has very poor design, development and no working
> alternative (for 5+ years now).
If you want to make such statements, you have to offer a little more than
the hot air you're producing right now...
If you want to improve the design, you're more than welcome. I'm the first
one to admit that there's still lots of room for improvement, but if you
want to claim this can only be done via a rewrite, then you have to be
a lot more specific what's wrong the current design and why it's
unfixable.
Quite some thought has been put into this design and if you were a little
more specific, I could actually tell you why it is this way and maybe how
to improve it incrementally instead of trying to reinvent everything.
> + shell-like[0] (not like CML1, which is just shell) scripting, allowing
> to extend easily (if there is no one available) capabilities,
> config values or actions for particular sub-system or compilation
> unit,
Just to pick this one point as example: I like scripting and maybe I
should just update the swig wrapper script I already have and merge it,
which would make it easier to play with the kconfig database in whatever
language you like.
OTOH due to the necessary build dependencies I don't see this become a
mandatory feature, so unless there is a compelling reason a certain set of
base function will remain in C.
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
