Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL - Kernel

This is a discussion on Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL - Kernel ; On Thursday 20 September 2007 16:31, Andrew Morton wrote: > I struggled for five minutes trying to work out how to make CONFIG_SYSCTL > go away and gave up in disgust. > > God I hate select. IMO a better ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL

  1. Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL

    On Thursday 20 September 2007 16:31, Andrew Morton wrote:

    > I struggled for five minutes trying to work out how to make CONFIG_SYSCTL
    > go away and gave up in disgust.
    >
    > God I hate select.


    IMO a better implementation would result in a notification / confirmation of
    turning on new items, and the ability to deselect options which will also
    confirm to deselect dependants. Like most other systems that have similar
    problem to solve.
    -
    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/

  2. Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL



    On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > >
    > > God I hate select.

    >
    > IMO a better implementation would result in a notification / confirmation of
    > turning on new items, and the ability to deselect options which will also
    > confirm to deselect dependants. Like most other systems that have similar
    > problem to solve.


    Actually, the *really* nice thing to do would be to just add the reason
    something got enabled into the ".config" file.

    IOW, wouldn't it be nice if the .config file just said

    ...
    CONFIG_ACPI=y # selected by X86_64_ACPI_NUMA
    CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS=y # user choice
    ...

    etc, since the config process actually does know these things?

    That way, there's always a fairly straightforward way to see why some
    configuration is the way it is (and the .config file is not only useful
    for "make oldconfig", it's also what normally gets passed around for bug
    reports, and is part of distro kernel packages etc, so it would seem to be
    the right place, no?)

    Linus
    -
    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/

  3. Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL

    On Saturday 29 September 2007 00:34, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > > > God I hate select.

    > >
    > > IMO a better implementation would result in a notification / confirmation
    > > of turning on new items, and the ability to deselect options which will
    > > also confirm to deselect dependants. Like most other systems that have
    > > similar problem to solve.

    >
    > Actually, the *really* nice thing to do would be to just add the reason
    > something got enabled into the ".config" file.
    >
    > IOW, wouldn't it be nice if the .config file just said
    >
    > ...
    > CONFIG_ACPI=y # selected by X86_64_ACPI_NUMA
    > CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS=y # user choice
    > ...
    >
    > etc, since the config process actually does know these things?


    Sure, that would probably be pretty trivial to implement too, and
    would solve most problems for kernel devs.

    At a level up from that, I think ease of use could be improved with
    a package manager-type chained-selection/deselection feature in
    the config tools.

    Not that I'm volunteering to implement either

    >
    > That way, there's always a fairly straightforward way to see why some
    > configuration is the way it is (and the .config file is not only useful
    > for "make oldconfig", it's also what normally gets passed around for bug
    > reports, and is part of distro kernel packages etc, so it would seem to be
    > the right place, no?)
    >
    > Linus

    -
    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/

  4. Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL

    On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:05:33 +1000
    > Sure, that would probably be pretty trivial to implement too, and
    > would solve most problems for kernel devs.
    >
    > At a level up from that, I think ease of use could be improved with
    > a package manager-type chained-selection/deselection feature in
    > the config tools.
    >

    only if you make it Aunt-Tilly friendly

    /me runs like hell
    -
    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/

  5. Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL

    On Thursday 27 September 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > On Saturday 29 September 2007 00:34, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > > > > God I hate select.
    > > >
    > > > IMO a better implementation would result in a notification /

    confirmation
    > > > of turning on new items, and the ability to deselect options which will
    > > > also confirm to deselect dependants. Like most other systems that have
    > > > similar problem to solve.

    > >
    > > Actually, the *really* nice thing to do would be to just add the reason
    > > something got enabled into the ".config" file.
    > >
    > > IOW, wouldn't it be nice if the .config file just said
    > >
    > > ...
    > > CONFIG_ACPI=y # selected by X86_64_ACPI_NUMA
    > > CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS=y # user choice
    > > ...
    > >
    > > etc, since the config process actually does know these things?

    >
    > Sure, that would probably be pretty trivial to implement too, and
    > would solve most problems for kernel devs.
    >
    > At a level up from that, I think ease of use could be improved with
    > a package manager-type chained-selection/deselection feature in
    > the config tools.
    >
    > Not that I'm volunteering to implement either
    >
    > >
    > > That way, there's always a fairly straightforward way to see why some
    > > configuration is the way it is (and the .config file is not only useful
    > > for "make oldconfig", it's also what normally gets passed around for bug
    > > reports, and is part of distro kernel packages etc, so it would seem to be
    > > the right place, no?)
    > >
    > > Linus

    > -
    > 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/
    >


    Adding the comments to the .config files sounds like a good project for a
    comparative newbie. By the end of next week I should have hardware available
    for experimental kernel builds. (And also some free wetware cycles.)

    Are there any other requirements for formatting I should consider?

    In a case where option A is specified by option B which is specified by option
    C which is specified by option D, should the comment on A mention B, or D or
    all three items in the chain?

    --
    Elyse Grasso

    http://www.data-raptors.com * *Computers and Technology
    http://www.astraltrading.com * Divination and Science Fiction
    http://www.data-raptors.com/global-c...so/blosxom.cgi WebLog
    -
    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/

  6. A bit of kconfig rewrite (Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL)

    * Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:12:51 -0600

    > On Thursday 27 September 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
    >> On Saturday 29 September 2007 00:34, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    >> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
    >> > > > God I hate select.
    >> > >
    >> > > IMO a better implementation would result in a notification /

    > confirmation
    >> > > of turning on new items, and the ability to deselect options which will
    >> > > also confirm to deselect dependants. Like most other systems that have
    >> > > similar problem to solve.
    >> >
    >> > Actually, the *really* nice thing to do would be to just add the reason
    >> > something got enabled into the ".config" file.

    []
    >> > CONFIG_ACPI=y # selected by X86_64_ACPI_NUMA
    >> > CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS=y # user choice
    >> > ...

    []
    >> Sure, that would probably be pretty trivial to implement too, and
    >> would solve most problems for kernel devs.
    >>
    >> At a level up from that, I think ease of use could be improved with
    >> a package manager-type chained-selection/deselection feature in
    >> the config tools.
    >>
    >> Not that I'm volunteering to implement either
    >>
    >> >
    >> > That way, there's always a fairly straightforward way to see why some
    >> > configuration is the way it is (and the .config file is not only useful
    >> > for "make oldconfig", it's also what normally gets passed around for bug
    >> > reports, and is part of distro kernel packages etc, so it would seem to be
    >> > the right place, no?)
    >> >
    >> > Linus

    []
    > Adding the comments to the .config files sounds like a good project for a
    > comparative newbie. By the end of next week I should have hardware available
    > for experimental kernel builds. (And also some free wetware cycles.)
    >
    > Are there any other requirements for formatting I should consider?


    No. Not another semi-newbie and/or semi-halfway done job, please.

    I'm pretty sure, that Linus is proposing that only after manual
    editing of/looking into the `.config' after `make oldconfig`.

    Before you will consider anything, please, check recent LKML (kbuild
    rewrite) and kbuild-devel(years 2001-2002) archives (assuming, you have
    experience with any build/conf things).

    Today's kconfig was proposed and accepted in a very unpleasant
    circumstances, has very poor design, development and no working
    alternative (for 5+ years now).

    The basics, i'm trying to put into design of the new kconfig, as part of
    my kbuild (already described a bit)/kconfig rewrite are:

    * flexible configuration development(kdevs) and process(kusers)

    + shell-like[0] (not like CML1, which is just shell) scripting, allowing
    to extend easily (if there is no one available) capabilities,
    config values or actions for particular sub-system or compilation
    unit,

    [0] if somebody would like to see *a* shell-like scripting:
    ftp://flower.upol.cz/geloiwa/src/usr.../geloiwa/iwant

    + duplex travelling, multi- looking at/changing of config items,

    + flexible, yet built-able, connections in dependency chain (tree,
    graph, whatever);

    * resulting config file capable of producing exact config results of the
    build on any other setup
    (e.g. no ARCH=, CROSS_*, *_FLAGS *kbuild* things);

    * checking tool for particular config patterns (for bug reports)

    * system itself must be done with minimum requirements for C libraries
    (no ncurses) and tools (no `perl`, no `python`, no `make`).

    > In a case where option A is specified by option B which is specified by option
    > C which is specified by option D, should the comment on A mention B, or D or
    > all three items in the chain?


    Fsck it. All must be done by a machine with maximum comfort of users (not
    particularly humans), even for those, who like to edit config like so:

    `sed -i 's/SYSFS=y/SYSFS="please, NO!!!"/' .config`

    --
    -o--=O`C
    #oo'L O
    <___=E M
    -
    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/

  7. Re: A bit of kconfig rewrite (Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL)

    Hi Oleg.
    >
    > Today's kconfig was proposed and accepted in a very unpleasant
    > circumstances, has very poor design, development and no working
    > alternative (for 5+ years now).


    I have read all your mails about this subject - but I still miss what
    is so bad about current design.

    Could you try to stay down on the earth and be very specific about
    what you see as so bad in current design.
    "With stay down on earth" I try to say that what I have read before
    I could not dechiper so be specific, please.

    Sam
    -
    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/

  8. Re: A bit of kconfig rewrite (Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL)

    On Monday 01 October 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
    > * Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:12:51 -0600
    >
    > > On Thursday 27 September 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > >> On Saturday 29 September 2007 00:34, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > >> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > >> > > > God I hate select.
    > >> > >
    > >> > > IMO a better implementation would result in a notification /

    > > confirmation
    > >> > > of turning on new items, and the ability to deselect options which

    will
    > >> > > also confirm to deselect dependants. Like most other systems that

    have
    > >> > > similar problem to solve.
    > >> >
    > >> > Actually, the *really* nice thing to do would be to just add the reason
    > >> > something got enabled into the ".config" file.

    > []
    > >> > CONFIG_ACPI=y # selected by X86_64_ACPI_NUMA
    > >> > CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS=y # user choice
    > >> > ...

    > []
    > >> Sure, that would probably be pretty trivial to implement too, and
    > >> would solve most problems for kernel devs.
    > >>
    > >> At a level up from that, I think ease of use could be improved with
    > >> a package manager-type chained-selection/deselection feature in
    > >> the config tools.
    > >>
    > >> Not that I'm volunteering to implement either
    > >>
    > >> >
    > >> > That way, there's always a fairly straightforward way to see why some
    > >> > configuration is the way it is (and the .config file is not only useful
    > >> > for "make oldconfig", it's also what normally gets passed around for

    bug
    > >> > reports, and is part of distro kernel packages etc, so it would seem to

    be
    > >> > the right place, no?)
    > >> >
    > >> > Linus

    > []
    > > Adding the comments to the .config files sounds like a good project for a
    > > comparative newbie. By the end of next week I should have hardware

    available
    > > for experimental kernel builds. (And also some free wetware cycles.)
    > >
    > > Are there any other requirements for formatting I should consider?

    >
    > No. Not another semi-newbie and/or semi-halfway done job, please.
    >
    > I'm pretty sure, that Linus is proposing that only after manual
    > editing of/looking into the `.config' after `make oldconfig`.
    >
    > Before you will consider anything, please, check recent LKML (kbuild
    > rewrite) and kbuild-devel(years 2001-2002) archives (assuming, you have
    > experience with any build/conf things).
    >
    > Today's kconfig was proposed and accepted in a very unpleasant
    > circumstances, has very poor design, development and no working
    > alternative (for 5+ years now).
    >
    > The basics, i'm trying to put into design of the new kconfig, as part of
    > my kbuild (already described a bit)/kconfig rewrite are:
    >
    > * flexible configuration development(kdevs) and process(kusers)
    >
    > + shell-like[0] (not like CML1, which is just shell) scripting, allowing
    > to extend easily (if there is no one available) capabilities,
    > config values or actions for particular sub-system or compilation
    > unit,
    >
    > [0] if somebody would like to see *a* shell-like scripting:
    > ftp://flower.upol.cz/geloiwa/src/usr.../geloiwa/iwant
    >
    > + duplex travelling, multi- looking at/changing of config items,
    >
    > + flexible, yet built-able, connections in dependency chain (tree,
    > graph, whatever);
    >
    > * resulting config file capable of producing exact config results of the
    > build on any other setup
    > (e.g. no ARCH=, CROSS_*, *_FLAGS *kbuild* things);
    >
    > * checking tool for particular config patterns (for bug reports)
    >
    > * system itself must be done with minimum requirements for C libraries
    > (no ncurses) and tools (no `perl`, no `python`, no `make`).
    >
    > > In a case where option A is specified by option B which is specified by

    option
    > > C which is specified by option D, should the comment on A mention B, or D

    or
    > > all three items in the chain?

    >
    > Fsck it. All must be done by a machine with maximum comfort of users (not
    > particularly humans), even for those, who like to edit config like so:
    >
    > `sed -i 's/SYSFS=y/SYSFS="please, NO!!!"/' .config`
    >
    > --
    > -o--=O`C
    > #oo'L O
    > <___=E M
    >


    I did not see a requirement for a major rewrite for a tool or a toolset. I saw
    a requirement for one specific improvement to the output of one specific
    program. It seems to be an improvement that will provide immediate benefits,
    so is worthwhile even if it will eventually be superceded by a new generation
    of the tool..

    After making my living as a software engineer for the past 26 years, I know
    better than to start learning a new environment by setting out to make major
    architectural changes. Or without adequately detailed requirements (even if
    they are self-generated). Apparently the newbies you complain about have not
    learned these lessons yet, leading to incomplete and unfinished projects.

    When I have used this little project as a gateway into the toolset, I might
    consider taking part in your larger redesign project as a follow on, if you
    can provide more detailed and coherent specifications for what you want done.

    Or not.

    In this case, no one is paying me to deal with inadequate specifications and
    rude people, so I may find something else to do with my spare time and
    equipment.

    --
    Elyse Grasso

    http://www.data-raptors.com * *Computers and Technology
    http://www.astraltrading.com * Divination and Science Fiction
    http://www.data-raptors.com/global-c...so/blosxom.cgi WebLog
    -
    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/

  9. Re: [kbuild-devel] A bit of kconfig rewrite (Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL)

    Hi,

    On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:

    > Today's kconfig was proposed and accepted in a very unpleasant
    > circumstances, has very poor design, development and no working
    > alternative (for 5+ years now).


    If you want to make such statements, you have to offer a little more than
    the hot air you're producing right now...
    If you want to improve the design, you're more than welcome. I'm the first
    one to admit that there's still lots of room for improvement, but if you
    want to claim this can only be done via a rewrite, then you have to be
    a lot more specific what's wrong the current design and why it's
    unfixable.
    Quite some thought has been put into this design and if you were a little
    more specific, I could actually tell you why it is this way and maybe how
    to improve it incrementally instead of trying to reinvent everything.

    > + shell-like[0] (not like CML1, which is just shell) scripting, allowing
    > to extend easily (if there is no one available) capabilities,
    > config values or actions for particular sub-system or compilation
    > unit,


    Just to pick this one point as example: I like scripting and maybe I
    should just update the swig wrapper script I already have and merge it,
    which would make it easier to play with the kconfig database in whatever
    language you like.
    OTOH due to the necessary build dependencies I don't see this become a
    mandatory feature, so unless there is a compelling reason a certain set of
    base function will remain in C.

    bye, Roman
    -
    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/

  10. Re: A bit of kconfig rewrite (Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL)

    On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 04:35:41AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
    >
    > > Today's kconfig was proposed and accepted in a very unpleasant
    > > circumstances, has very poor design, development and no working
    > > alternative (for 5+ years now).

    >
    > If you want to make such statements, you have to offer a little more than
    > the hot air you're producing right now...

    ....

    > If you want to improve the design, you're more than welcome. I'm the first
    > one to admit that there's still lots of room for improvement, but if you
    > want to claim this can only be done via a rewrite, then you have to be
    > a lot more specific what's wrong the current design and why it's
    > unfixable.
    > Quite some thought has been put into this design and if you were a little
    > more specific, I could actually tell you why it is this way and maybe how
    > to improve it incrementally instead of trying to reinvent everything.


    Thanks. I will be specific, after i will finish, what i already have,
    to make air a bit less hot. Of course everything will be back
    compatible, so nothing to worry about (the rewrite).
    ____
    -
    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/

  11. Re: A bit of kconfig rewrite (Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL)



    On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
    >
    > Thanks. I will be specific, after i will finish, what i already have,
    > to make air a bit less hot. Of course everything will be back
    > compatible, so nothing to worry about (the rewrite).


    Qutie frankly, this kind of "I'll tell you more when I'm done" is not
    generally a very working approach.

    If it's all backwards-compatible with the current Kconfig format, I guess
    it's not too bad, but historically speaking, the people who went off on
    their own and redesigned something from scratch have not been successful
    (and the CML2 thing is a good example of that).

    Incremental improvements actually tend to do better than "redesign".
    That's largely true outside of computer science too..

    Linus
    -
    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/

  12. Re: A bit of kconfig rewrite (Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL)

    On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 09:03:00AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    >
    >
    > On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
    > >
    > > Thanks. I will be specific, after i will finish, what i already have,
    > > to make air a bit less hot. Of course everything will be back
    > > compatible, so nothing to worry about (the rewrite).

    >
    > Qutie frankly, this kind of "I'll tell you more when I'm done" is not
    > generally a very working approach.
    >
    > If it's all backwards-compatible with the current Kconfig format, I guess
    > it's not too bad, but historically speaking, the people who went off on
    > their own and redesigned something from scratch have not been successful
    > (and the CML2 thing is a good example of that).


    Spent whole September on LKML archive (grave) digging, actually. So,
    please, get me right.

    If i have finally made statement like that (rewrite with new design),
    that basically means, i'll try to bring something, that probably will be
    better, not emotionally (CML2 , but technically (kbuild-2.5's 100%
    slowdown of some important functionality .

    > Incremental improvements actually tend to do better than "redesign".


    I'm not going to call (and thus targeting) that thing "kbuild-2.7" or
    "kconfig-ng", "CML3000" or anything like that.

    If my proposal will fit, i.e. configuring and building something
    (anything) becomes more easy, more flexible, etc., then any project can
    try and adopt it actually. And this will be a measure of quality.

    > That's largely true outside of computer science too..


    Will see. If i will fail, who will care; i will not. Somebody spend years
    of doing that, what was rejected. More than 5 years of current
    kbuild/kconfig "development calmness". So...

    Maintenance and acceptance of the m4/make/perl/C/ncurses community of my
    mainly `TERM=linux ; sed && sh' approach is more important for me.

    Thanks, Linus.
    ____
    -
    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/

  13. Re: A bit of kconfig rewrite (Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL)

    > Maintenance and acceptance of the m4/make/perl/C/ncurses community of my
    > mainly `TERM=linux ; sed && sh' approach is more important for me.


    There is noone having trouble with ncurses dependency today.
    And perl is not yet mandatory for a kernel build expect
    for a few architectures.
    m4 is not used by the kernel - to my best knowledge.

    Sam
    -
    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/

  14. Re: A bit of kconfig rewrite (Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL)

    On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 08:59:20PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
    > > Maintenance and acceptance of the m4/make/perl/C/ncurses community of my
    > > mainly `TERM=linux ; sed && sh' approach is more important for me.

    >
    > There is noone having trouble with ncurses dependency today.


    Who wants to meet a zombie anyway?

    == Message-ID: <20051212004606.31263.37616.stgit@machine.or.cz> ==
    From: Petr Baudis
    Subject: [PATCH 3/3] [kconfig] Direct use of lxdialog routines by menuconfig
    Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 01:46:06 +0100

    After three years, the zombie walks again! This patch (against the latest
    git tree) cleans up interaction between kconfig's mconf (menuconfig
    frontend) and lxdialog. Its commandline interface disappears in this patch,
    instead a .so is packed from the lxdialog objects and the relevant
    functions are called directly from mconf.

    == * ==

    > And perl is not yet mandatory for a kernel build expect
    > for a few architectures.


    Not build per se, but perl mind share of the people. Did they ever
    looked into `strace`, when running (kind of) `perl simple-regex`?

    Maybe there weren't right people to manage things easily in shell?
    Reinventing parser was a major step back, whatever anyone can say.

    == (seems like not original ID) 17982.5167906985$1029355529@news.gmane.org ==
    From: Sam Ravnborg
    Subject: Get rid of shell based Config.in parsers?
    Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:14:00 +0200

    [...]

    I dislike seeing arguments that this is not easy/possible in shell based
    parsers. If the chosen technology does not fit the problem domain
    then it's about time to shift technology.

    Sam
    == * ==

    == Message-ID: ==
    From: Linus Torvalds
    Subject: Re: Get rid of shell based Config.in parsers?
    Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:51:03 -0700 (PDT)

    On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
    >
    > Where comes the requirement that we shall keep the existing shell
    > based config parsers?


    I use them exclusively.

    It is far and away the most convenient parsing - just to do "make
    oldconfig" (possibly by making changes by hand to the .config file
    first).

    As far as I'm personally concerned, the shell parsers are the _only_
    parser that really matter. So if you want to replace them with something
    else, that something else had better be pretty much perfect and not take
    all that long to build.

    Linus
    == * ==

    > m4 is not used by the kernel - to my best knowledge.


    That was a rhetoric (i guess) statement. But it *is* used to
    configure/build almost all tools, currently directly or indirectly
    kbuild/kconfig uses.

    `m4 'make "shell"'`

    *OR*

    `To quote lguest 'To quote David Wheeler:

    "Any problem in computer science can be solved with
    another layer of indirection."'`

    That's my personal view. And after 5-6 years of the "development", i
    can see the "results". Again, will see.
    ____
    -
    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/

  15. Re: A bit of kconfig rewrite (Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL)

    On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 10:47:21PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
    > On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 08:59:20PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
    > > > Maintenance and acceptance of the m4/make/perl/C/ncurses community of my
    > > > mainly `TERM=linux ; sed && sh' approach is more important for me.

    > >
    > > There is noone having trouble with ncurses dependency today.

    >
    > Who wants to meet a zombie anyway?


    Finding quotes from old threads does not in any way prove your point.
    And you see to get things wrong too.
    There were complains that menuconfig was flickering when it used
    lxdialog as a standalone executable which was addressed.
    It was not addresses by a tolal rewrite we just integrated the lxdialog
    functionality with kconfig - issue closed.
    There were talks about shell based parsers or not. We ended up
    selecting a design with a common backend shared by several frontends.
    The frotends you know as oldconfig, menuconfig, xconfig and gconfig.
    And the same backend <-> multiple frontends design you claim are broken
    and continue your ranting about shell scripting.

    But you have somehow skrewed up the facts here.
    There are no one having big issue with netiehr kconfig nor kbuild.
    And as being maintainer for kbuild and for some parts of kconfig
    I am getting quite feed up with your continous ranting that they
    are both in such a bad shape that a rewrite is needed.
    And until now you have not given one single example of real
    problems that will be solved by a total rewrite and cannot
    be solved otherwise.

    Sam
    -
    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/

  16. Re: A bit of kconfig rewrite (Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL)

    On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
    > On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 10:47:21PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
    > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 08:59:20PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
    > > > > Maintenance and acceptance of the m4/make/perl/C/ncurses community of my
    > > > > mainly `TERM=linux ; sed && sh' approach is more important for me.
    > > >
    > > > There is noone having trouble with ncurses dependency today.

    > >
    > > Who wants to meet a zombie anyway?

    >
    > Finding quotes from old threads does not in any way prove your point.


    This makes air hot for Roman. I want to prove my point not by words. But
    have to reply with something on my side, until i have work done.

    []
    > And until now you have not given one single example of real
    > problems that will be solved by a total rewrite and cannot
    > be solved otherwise.


    If you didn't see them in that, what i've posted, then i just have to
    say: i don't need to give anything. There are kvm, lguest, xen with ext2,
    ext3, xfs, etc. And there's no working alternative to build/config
    system. Thus, let me have my try OK? Thanks!

    Bye.
    ____
    -
    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/

  17. Re: A bit of kconfig rewrite (Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL)

    On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
    > On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
    > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 10:47:21PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
    > > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 08:59:20PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
    > > > > > Maintenance and acceptance of the m4/make/perl/C/ncurses community of my
    > > > > > mainly `TERM=linux ; sed && sh' approach is more important for me.
    > > > >
    > > > > There is noone having trouble with ncurses dependency today.
    > > >
    > > > Who wants to meet a zombie anyway?

    > >
    > > Finding quotes from old threads does not in any way prove your point.

    >
    > This makes air hot for Roman. I want to prove my point not by words. But
    > have to reply with something on my side, until i have work done.
    >
    > []
    > > And until now you have not given one single example of real
    > > problems that will be solved by a total rewrite and cannot
    > > be solved otherwise.

    >
    > If you didn't see them in that, what i've posted, then i just have to
    > say: i don't need to give anything. There are kvm, lguest, xen with ext2,
    > ext3, xfs, etc. And there's no working alternative to build/config
    > system. Thus, let me have my try OK? Thanks!



    Let's add an alternative to the Makefiles, too....


    Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

    Geert

    --
    Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

    In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
    when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
    -- Linus Torvalds
    -
    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/

  18. Re: A bit of kconfig rewrite (Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL)

    >
    > And there's no working alternative to build/config
    > system. Thus, let me have my try OK? Thanks!


    I would prefer if you used your time to do small incrmental improvements
    to what we have today rather then rewriting from scratch.

    But it's your decision and not mine.

    Sam
    -
    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/

  19. Re: A bit of kconfig rewrite (Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix compile error if !CONFIG_SYSCTL)

    On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 10:22:01PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
    > >
    > > And there's no working alternative to build/config
    > > system. Thus, let me have my try OK? Thanks!

    >
    > I would prefer if you used your time to do small incrmental improvements
    > to what we have today rather then rewriting from scratch.
    >
    > But it's your decision and not mine.


    In case anybody is interested:

    Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kbuild.devel,gmane.linux.kernel
    Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT] kbuild: save ARCH & CROSS_COMPILE
    Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 22:50:48 +0200
    Message-ID: <20071008205048.GY22435@flower.upol.cz>
    Archived-At:
    ____
    -
    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/

+ Reply to Thread