> once upon a time, i suggested having more than one level of module
> "quality". at the moment, some kernel code is marked as "EXPERIMENTAL"=
> ,
> but this is supported via a regular dependency when it doesn't really
> qualify as a dependency. dependencies are typically used to refer to
> dependencies on other *code*, not some abstract level of goodness
> like "EXPERIMENTAL".
>
> perhaps it's time to add another category with values like OBSOLETE,
> DEPRECATED, EXPERIMENTAL, BROKEN(?) and so on. by default, the
> quality would be regular, or something like that.
_NO_!!!
This is a _bad thing_, if a distribution wants to do it to their tree,
fine, but why add extra layers of complexity that a lot of devlopers
don't care about just so that the source tree 'looks nice'? It's
absolutely pointless, and irritating for anybody actually trying to
work on the codebase.
> and in the end, while i know some folks don't think it's a big
> deal, i think doing a "make allyesconfig" really should work.
It's _counter productive_ just to bodge it so that make allyesconfig
works. I _want_ it to _fail_ if the drivers are _broken_.
A CONFIG_KNOWN_BROKEN option is a good thing, in the case where,
E.G. a SCSI driver is broken, and will randomly corrupt data, but
otherwise compiles and appears to work. Apart from that, it's a
complete waste of time to fiddle around with silly options that do
nothing but bloat the codebase and waste developers' time.
John.
-
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 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:23 EST