Subject: Re: Refactoring MI devices in GENERIC and friends
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Antti Kantee <email@example.com>
Date: 09/08/2007 20:46:55
On Sat Sep 08 2007 at 19:20:21 +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > - It will be much, much, more difficult for the user to wire down a
> > configuration. IMO, doing this implies that we (the project) rather
> > strongly discourage home-grown kernel configurations.
> I disagree on this. If you go by the original list, e.g. for a server
> you would comment out the include for cardbus and PCMCIA. You inline the
> USB and PCI fragments you are interested in. That is not that much more
> work than hunting down the rather long list we currently have.
I suggest a tool for flattening the config file, usage e.g.
config -f GENERIC > MYCONF
That way you could also comment out the inclusion of, say, cardbus from
the config file before flattening it and get a much more trimmed-down
version without extra goop and a "no cardbus" statement. This might be
at least slightly better for usabilty?
Dunno how much work that is, but I assume negligible for someone who
knows config(1). Hmm, who around here knows config(1) .... ?-)
> > The last point is important to me: if we do this, we might as well
> > change the syntax for something much more flexible (like, say, a markup
> > language rumoured to be extensible, or a subset of it, for which we have
> > a parser).
IMHO we should discourage home-grown kernel configs, but OTOH we can't
exactly do that today, tomorrow, or even next week and still have
everything work. However, would be nice if the project set a policy
for moving towards this (or moving away from it, if so decided).
Antti Kantee <firstname.lastname@example.org> Of course he runs NetBSD
"la qualité la plus indispensable du cuisinier est l'exactitude"