> On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 09:09:35PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 11:39:07AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
>> > usr/lib/arch/arm/MCONFIG | 26
>> Any good reasons for such a screaming name?
>> makefile.config eventually.
>
> Ask Peter :)
Simply because several other projects I use have MCONFIG files, and I'm
used to the name.
>> > usr/lib/arch/arm/Makefile.inc | 31
>>
>> No extension is used for arch/arm/Makefile
>> Why does klibc differ in this respect?
>> [An answer that tell me that arch/arm/Makefile should
>> change is fine with me..]
>
> Ask Russell :)
Mine, actually: I don't like naming things Makefile unless it's OK to type
"make" in that directory.
>> > usr/lib/makeerrlist.pl | 80
>> > usr/lib/socketcalls.pl | 75
>>
>> This mixture of code and scripts to generate code hursts my eye. What
>> about usr/scripts/.
>
> But they are the scripts used to build the code in usr/lib. I don't
> care where they go, that's just where they were in the klibc tarball.
Quite frankly, I think this is a bogus request. The .pl extension flags
these, but if you think about it, there really is no difference between
"code" and "scripts that generate code" -- each is a form of source code,
just compiled by different programs.
>> I assume you do not want them in scripts/
>
> Yeah, I wouldn't think they should go their either.
No, that would completely suck.
usr/lib/tools would be semi-acceptable, but quite frankly I think it
really is just complexity for complexity's sake. I also happen to believe
that when it comes to aestetic judgements (which *all* of these objections
are!) it should be primarily a choice of the people maintaining the code,
and perhaps Linus.
-hpa
-
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 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:27 EST