Roman Zippel wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > FWIW a much better transition path is very close to what your tool does,
> > and is a suggestion made by mec (kbuild maintainer) near the end of the
> > recent flamewar: convert config.in files one at a time, like we did the
> > old makefiles.
>
> That's possible, as soon as the menu information is added, both formats
> contain the same information, so a program with two parsers can handle
> both simultaneously.
yep
> > That would imply a rewrite of make [old]config, and an updating of make
> > menu|xconfig, to handle the new format...
>
> I think we should just dump the old tools and implement a single config
> library, which exports an interface to access the config information.
I do not think we can -avoid- dumping scripts/Configure[1], replacing
the existing tools. In that respect I agree with Eric and the others.
So your proposition makes sense. But the configuration language can and
should be migrated, IMO.
Jeff
[1] Sure you could code a replacement parser in bash shell script. But
that's just wanking, like a Georgia Tech professor of mine: he
implemented a visual Towers of Hanoi solver in vi macros. We all
thought it was cool but ultimately CS wanking of no real value :)
--
Jeff Garzik | "Why is it that attractive girls like you
Building 1024 | always seem to have a boyfriend?"
MandrakeSoft | "Because I'm a nympho that owns a brewery?"
| - BBC TV show "Coupling"
-
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 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:32 EST