On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 06:30:45PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:18:38AM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> > As far as CML2 versus an mconfig-based solution, I am tilted towards CML2,
> > as it is simply a better language. I would be happy with either choice
> > if Linus made one of those choices. I would be unhappy if 2.6/3.0
> > continued to ship with Configure/menuconfig/xconfig.
>
> Indepenand of wether 2.6 will use CML1 or CML2 I hope it won't ship with
> the actual config tool. It's so much nicer to have mconfig compiled once
> in /usr/bin instead of compiling menuconfig all the time in the tree.
>
> No to mention it's much easier to propagate bug fixes this way..
>
If the configure system is outside of the kernel, you have the possibility
of requiring newer user-space utilities as a stable kernel changes over
time...
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 21:00:26 EST