Re: Why don't we separate menuconfig from the kernel?

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:46:35 +0200 Jesper Juhl wrote:

> On 17 Sep 2005 19:16:33 +0200, Krzysztof Halasa <khc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > A number of packages (e.g., busybox) use some, more or less broken,
> > version of menuconfig. Would it make sense to move menuconfig to
> > a separate well-defined package?
> > 
> 
> What exactely is it you want to make a sepperate package?
> 
> 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.
> 
> menuconfig uses `dialog` to present its menus and dialog boxes (using
> ncurses), and if you want to build something else using dialog, then
> that already exists as a sepperate program that has nothing to do with
> kbuild. On my system (Slackware) it's installed as /bin/dialog and
> comes from the pkgtools-10.2.0-i486-5 package.
> 
> I don't think it makes much sense to split the parts of kbuild that
> make up menuconfig out into a standalone thing. kbuild (and thus
> menuconfig) has little use outside the kernel.  The `dialog` tool is a
> different matter, but that is already a sepperately developed thing (
> http://hightek.org/dialog/ ) .

OTOH, Christoph Hellwig used to maintain 'mconf' out-of-tree
and it worked decently, so it seems not a big deal to so do.

---
~Randy
You can't do anything without having to do something else first.
-- Belefant's Law
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/