From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 13 May 2001 11:26:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 13 May 2001 11:26:32 -0400 Received: from snark.tuxedo.org ([207.106.50.26]:27654 "EHLO snark.thyrsus.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 13 May 2001 11:26:16 -0400 Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 11:25:44 -0400 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Jes Sorensen Cc: CML2 , kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: CML2 design philosophy heads-up Message-ID: <20010513112543.A16121@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com Mail-Followup-To: "Eric S. Raymond" , Jes Sorensen , CML2 , kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <20010505192731.A2374@thyrsus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from jes@sunsite.dk on Sun, May 13, 2001 at 04:22:59PM +0200 Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jes Sorensen : > Not all cards have all features, not all users wants to enable all > features. Yes, I understand that. You're not reading the derivations correctly. Let's take an example: derive MVME147_SCSI from MVME147 & SCSI This doesn't turn on MVME147_SCSI on every MVME147 board. It turns on MVME147_SCSI when both MVME147 *and SCCI* are on. So to suppress MVME147_SCSI, one just leaves SCCI off. All these derived symbols will still be controllable. The difference is that instead of being controlled by a low-level hardware-oriented question they're controlled by a capability or subsystem symbol like SCSI, NET_ETHERNET, or SERIAL. > Eric> # These were separate questions in CML1 derive MAC_SCC from MAC > Eric> & SERIAL derive MAC_SCSI from MAC & SCSI derive SUN3_SCSI from > Eric> (SUN3 | SUN3X) & SCSI > > As Alan already pointed out thats assumption is invalid. I'm in touch with Ray Knight directly and will fix this as he requests. > Yes I have objections. I thought I had made this clear a long time > ago: Go play with another port and leave the m68k port alone. Does this mean you'll take over maintaining the CML2 rules files for the m68k port, so I don't have to? That would be wonderful. Reasoned objections can change my behavior. Grunting territorial challenges at me will not. You have two options: (1) persuade Linus that the whole CML2 thing is a bad idea and should be dropped, or (2) work with me to correct any errors I have made and improve the system. Growling at me and hoping I go away won't work, not when I've invested a year's effort in this project. -- Eric S. Raymond As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents. -- George Orwell