Re: Why don't we separate menuconfig from the kernel?

[Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>]

On 9/18/05, Randy.Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:46:35 +0200 Jesper Juhl wrote:
> 
> > On 17 Sep 2005 19:16:33 +0200, Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > A number of packages (e.g., busybox) use some, more or less broken,
> > > version of menuconfig. Would it make sense to move menuconfig to
> > > a separate well-defined package?
> > >
> >
> > What exactely is it you want to make a sepperate package?
> >
> > menuconfig is just a little bit of the kbuild system which also
> > includes xconfig, config, gconfig, oldconfig, etc.  menuconfig is just
> > a dialog based frontend to the kbuild system which consists of
> > configuration options, help texts, dependency info etc.
> >
> > menuconfig uses `dialog` to present its menus and dialog boxes (using
> > ncurses), and if you want to build something else using dialog, then
> > that already exists as a sepperate program that has nothing to do with
> > kbuild. On my system (Slackware) it's installed as /bin/dialog and
> > comes from the pkgtools-10.2.0-i486-5 package.
> >
> > I don't think it makes much sense to split the parts of kbuild that
> > make up menuconfig out into a standalone thing. kbuild (and thus
> > menuconfig) has little use outside the kernel.  The `dialog` tool is a
> > different matter, but that is already a sepperately developed thing (
> > http://hightek.org/dialog/ ) .
> 
> OTOH, Christoph Hellwig used to maintain 'mconf' out-of-tree
> and it worked decently, so it seems not a big deal to so do.
> 
I still fail to see the point of doing so, even if doable.

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html