Chris Lattner <sabre@skylab.org>:
> How feasable would it be to extend CML2 and clean up the code base to
> avoid having to do a make dep / make clean to be reasonable sure stuff is
> consistent?
It would be technically possible. I don't want to do it -- or, at least,
I don't want to do it yet. Here is why:
1. Right now, CML2 is focused on a single, well-defined problem for which
the nature of a correct solution is clear. I want to solve that problem
first without getting tangled up in larger, vaguer issues.
2. I suspect the problem you're talking about is best solved not with CML2
itself but with separate, custom-built script-language machinery
operating on a configuration file produced by CML2.
Once we have a clean solution to the problem of generating and editing
config files, then (and only then) I'll be willing to think about
reforming other parts of the build system.
At that point, however, assuming CML2 is adopted, I'll be *very*
willing. Configuration management challenges are in the class of
problems I both understand and enjoy solving. I will get us
good results there.
-- <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond</a>He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. -- Albert Einstein
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:23 EST