Re: proper place to discuss kernel 'bloatedness'?
Michael Slade (mslade@cit.nepean.uws.edu.au)
Sat, 30 Jan 1999 20:00:49 +1100
Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> Michael Talbot-Wilson <mtw@calypso.view.net.au> says:
> : In other words, someone has to create a secondary level of source
> : distribution, taking the single tarball and making available a
> : number of smaller ones organized on an intelligible pattern. Then
> : that secondary distribution has to make itself credible. The
> : likelihood is that most people would ignore it. It would complicate
> : matters, after all. So it's a nice idea, but probably a thankless
> : task, and doesn't seem likely to go anywhere.
>
> Well, it's possible that bitkeeper can help with this somehow. I'll have
> to think about it. Part of what you described is somewhat similar to
> something we're gonna have to do anyway, just to get people interested in
> actually using a source mgmt system for the kernel...
[snip]
Just thought I'd throw in a thought here.
It's probable that 80 percent of the kernel source is used be 20 percent
of the linux community. So much as splitting the kernel in two halves
would make a few people happy. One half would contain the core and the
most used stuff, the other would contain stuff like ISDN etc. Some
Makefile/config magic would make the first half work with or without the
other half.
Having said that, I would have no idea how to actually do it. :)
Mick, who can't type the percent sign because he fscked up some xmodmap
commands...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/