Sounds reasonable. I understand having clear goals... but keep in mind
areas that may need extension... so that there are no fundemental
limitations that cause problems in the future. :)
Thanks,
-Chris
On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> 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