Re: xconfig lossage: summary and suggestions (long)

James Mastros (root@jennifer-unix.dyn.ml.org)
Tue, 17 Feb 1998 17:00:53 -0500 (EST)


On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> Hi guys,
> > but we are going to need to re-write the [Cc]onfig.in files, all 3228
> > lines of them (in the linus tree), so why not go straight from buggy
> > current synthax to new (hopefully) bugless synthax in one fell swoop?
>
> Replacing all the code in scripts/ will be a big enough patch that it
> needs to be developed, tested, and deployed without rewriting another
> 3000 lines of [Cc]onfig.in files. I am not going to argue this point.
> If you want to do a "fell swoop" patch you can do it without me.

Calm down... Yes, I'm not one to do much testing of my own testing. Yes,
I'm VERY apt to make stupid mistakes. No, I'm not an idiot. My point is
simple: there is NO need to bring all current [Cc]onfig.in files into strict
complience with spec, only to then rip them all down anyway. We just need
to write our libary to be liberal in what it accepts. Here is MY version of
the plan. If you don't like it, please tell me why. There is no need to
tell me that you will quit if it isn't done your way.

1) Write a generic parsing service for [Cc]onfig.in files, and one frontend
for it (the simple "make config"/"make oldconfig").
2) Test.
3) Write xcnofig.
4) Test.
5) Write menuconfig?
6) Test? (I'm not certian if menuconfig is currently very useful. If you
want a console-based config, run config. If you want menus, use X.)
7) Debate on the new .cfg format.
8) Finalise
9) Add support for it to the backend.
10) Start re-writing the [Cc]onfig.in files into foo.cfg files.
11) Once all of the files are changed, remove support for the old format
from the libary.
12) Fix bugs for the rest of our misirable existances.

-=- James Mastros

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu