> James Mastros <root@jennifer-unix.dyn.ml.org> said:
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> > 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.)
Careful with the attributions. James Mastros suggested getting rid
of menuconfig. I didn't.
> config is _very_ hard to use; xconfig needs X (bad if you've got a smallish
> machine) and it's not very smart (it grays out options I don't have and
> don't care about, instead of just leaving them out). I use _only_
> menuconfig (and occasionally oldconfig) to configure kernels. I'd vote for
> menuconfig+oldconfig, and leave out config and xconfig in the first round.
I am committed to making sure all the existing flavors of configuration
work. I also personally use oldconfig and menuconfig about 95% of the
time, but config and xconfig have users as well.
> BTW, what's so wrong with the current syntax? Better keep the syntax and
> files, and don't screw around too much with configuration files that took
> years to build and finetune.
There will be no syntax changes in the first round of implementation.
After that, some people have expressed a desire for more powerful syntax.
I am not among them, though.
Michael Chastain
<mailto:mec@shout.net>
"love without fear"
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu