Re: [kbuild-devel] Converting the 2.5 kernel to kbuild 2.5

[Eric S. Raymond]

Alan Cox <[e-mail]>:
> > Unfortunately, the syntax of CML1 is rebarbative, and its imperative 
> > semantics cannot be mechanically translated to CML2's declarative 
> > semantics by any means I'm aware of.
> 
> The dependancy tree from CML1 is not that hard to obtain. It's not quite
> complete or correct though

That's right -- and the devil would be in the incomplete/incorrect
details. Areas of special pain: (1) cross-directory constraints, (2)
derivations, (3) multiple port tree apexes.  These are all areas where
CML1 has design flaws that human coders get around by applying
higher-level knowledge of a kind a mechanical translator couldn't
have.

This is, alas, one of those cases where the first 90% of the problem looks 
easy and the last 10% turns ought to be nigh-impossible -- and the
first 90% is useless without the last 10%.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look
upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
        -- Mohandas Ghandhi, An Autobiography, pg 446