From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [RFC 01/29] build: import Kbuild/Kconfig from Linux 4.2 Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 09:23:27 +0100 Message-ID: <5614D67F.2030907@citrix.com> References: <1444082620-3253-1-git-send-email-cardoe@cardoe.com> <1444082620-3253-2-git-send-email-cardoe@cardoe.com> <5613DE7102000078000A8889@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <5613FB08.7020702@cardoe.com> <5614D8B102000078000A8D9B@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <1444205974.5302.254.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1444205974.5302.254.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell , Jan Beulich , Doug Goldstein Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 07/10/2015 09:19, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 00:32 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 06.10.15 at 18:47, wrote: >>> On 10/6/15 7:45 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> Also, btw - I don't think we should name the thing Kconfig in Xen; >>>> Xconfig would be odd too (to be confused with X), so maybe >>>> XenConfig? >>> I forgot to answer the 2nd paragraph in my last reply. Sticking to >>> Kconfig was actually intentional to make it easy for us to stay in sync >>> with upstream development of Kconfig. >> How would a difference in names significantly hamper that? > It doesn't seem to me that cosmetic differences like file names are worth > forking over, even if the actual patch to do so would be trivial (I don't > know if it is or not). > > The language and the tool which implements it is called Kconfig (or > kconfig), the fact that K may once-upon-a-time have meant Kernel doesn't > seem terribly relevant to me. I concur. Keeping it called kconfig will allow more people to know exactly what it is. ~Andrew