Oh man. When you think one implementation of a 'standard' is better then
multiple go to the MS world.
> > All of these tools just require the runtime contained in the LSB and no
> > funky additional script languages. Also none needs a binary intermediate
> > representation of the config.
>
> I quote Linus at the 2.5 kernel summit: "Python is not an issue."
> Unless and until he changes his mind about that, waving around this
> kind of argument is likely to do your case more harm than good.
For me (and others) it is an issues.
> If you want to re-open the case for saving CML1, you'd be better off
> demonstrating how CML1 can be used to (a) automatically do implied
> side-effects when a symbol is changed,
With mconfig it can be implemented easily - I don't see the point in
doing it, though.
> (b) guarantee that the user
> cannot generate a configuration that violates stated invariants, and
What do you mean with that?
> (c) unify the configuration tree so that the equivalents of arch/*
> files never suffer from lag or skew when an architecture-independent
> feature is added to the kernel.
One toplevel config file can be implemented in CML1 easily,
using mconfig or the old and ugly tools, it's just a question of changeing
the rule base in tree.
At last Alan think multiple toplevel files are a feature, not a bug
(I don't agree with him on that) so it's a completly separate discussion.
Christoph
-- Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade. - 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/