kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Keith Owens]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Third and final attempt.  Original sent on May 2, second mail sent on
May 14, still no response from Linus.

Linus, kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the main 2.5 kernel tree.
It is faster, better documented, easier to write build rules in, has
better install facilities, allows separate source and object trees, can
do concurrent builds from the same source tree and is significantly
more accurate than the existing kernel build system.

The current state is

  kbuild-2.5-core-14		Fits any 2.4 and 2.5 kernel.
  kbuild-2.5-common-2.5.15-4	2.5.15 arch independent files.

There are several arch dependent files for 2.5.15 or earlier kernels.

  kbuild-2.5-i386-2.5.15-2
  kbuild-2.5-sparc64-2.5.15-1
  kbuild-2.5-s390-2.5.15-1
  kbuild-2.5-s390x-2.5.15-1
  kbuild-2.5-ppc-2.5.14-1
  kbuild-2.5-sh-2.5.12-1 (also fits 2.5.13)
  kbuild-2.5-ia64-2.5.10-020426-1 (last Mosberger patch)

That covers most of the architectures that currently build on 2.5.


This version has only been tested on CML1.  kbuild 2.5 has support for
an older version of CML2 but it has not been tested on newer versions
of CML2.

Before I send you the kbuild 2.5 patch, how do you want to handle it?

* Coexist with the existing kernel build for one or two releases or
  delete the old build system when kbuild 2.5 goes in?

  Coexistence for a few days gives a backout, just in case.  It also
  gives a kernel release where the old and new code can be compared,
  useful for architectures that have not been converted yet.

  Deleting the old system at the same time means that unconverted
  architectures cannot build.  OTOH many architectures are already
  broken in the 2.5 kernel.

* I need a quiet period of 24-48 hours (no changes at all) after a new
  kernel release to bring kbuild 2.5 up to the latest release, before
  sending you the complete patch.  Which kernel release do you want
  kbuild 2.5 against?

I would like kbuild 2.5 to go in in the near future.  Keeping up to
date with kernel changes is a significant effort, Makefiles change all
the time, especially when major subsystems like sound and usb are
reorganised.  There are also some changes to architecture code to do it
right under kbuild 2.5 and tracking those against kernel changes can be
painful.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999

iD8DBQE85DXKi4UHNye0ZOoRAsRyAJwP52HqsmJhZKNIiJKQUScLjD/cOgCffzTc
Uj1qHkvIszUfOYQtInekCYY=
=sxcO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Fri, 17 May 2002, Keith Owens wrote:

> Third and final attempt.  Original sent on May 2, second mail sent on
> May 14, still no response from Linus.

Linus is a bastard.  Did you forget?


Nicolas

Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[jeff millar]

Keith...

will any of the other kernels (dj, ml, ???) incorporate your system?

I'm about ready to try something else.

jeff
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Owens" <kaos@ocs.com.au>
To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: <torvalds@transmeta.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 6:42 PM
Subject: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> Third and final attempt.  Original sent on May 2, second mail sent on
> May 14, still no response from Linus.

Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Keith Owens]

On Thu, 16 May 2002 21:50:46 -0400, 
"jeff millar" <wa1hco@adelphia.net> wrote:
>will any of the other kernels (dj, ml, ???) incorporate your system?

Once Linus takes the patch, everybody else will follow.

Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Dave Jones]

On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 09:50:46PM -0400, jeff millar wrote:
 > will any of the other kernels (dj, ml, ???) incorporate your system?
 > I'm about ready to try something else.

I've thought it over a few times over the last few weeks, and tbh
inclusion in any tree other than Linus' doesn't really make much sense
other than perhaps to get some more 'early adopter' testers.

The current kbuild2.5 patches will apply cleanly against my tree, but
due to things like the new input layer still not being completely merged
in Linus' tree, some files are in different places, so the Makefile.in's
in kbuild2.5 point to the wrong places.

Sure, I could merge it, but tbh it's not worth the effort right now
of fixing up those files until Linus actually says yay or nay.

    Dave.

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs

Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Tomas Szepe]

> > Third and final attempt.  Original sent on May 2, second mail sent on
> > May 14, still no response from Linus.
> 
> Linus is a bastard.  Did you forget?

This is getting ridiculous all right.

Linus, what makes you ignore Keith's work?

Would you tend to think he's worked on kbuild25 this long
to end up having to send a linus-dammit-would-you-have-
-a-look-at-last-i'm-not-going-to-keep-asking-forever msg?

Sorry for a slightly offensive post; I can't stand to
see such impoliteness.

T.

Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Kenneth Johansson]

On Fri, 2002-05-17 at 00:42, Keith Owens wrote:

> Before I send you the kbuild 2.5 patch, how do you want to handle it?

Why do you not just make a patch the way that makes most sens to you and
sent it to him. 

If you asked me I think it's working so good that you can just rip out
the old one. 


Ps. The only strange thing left that I could find was that I could not
skip the makefile gen when I only wanted to run a config front.

make NO_MAKEFILE_GEN=1 xconfig

Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Russell King]

On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 05:30:56AM +0200, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> Linus, what makes you ignore Keith's work?

I'm not going to answer for Linus, except to say that Linus is taking
patches to fix and improve the existing kbuild in 2.5.

Maybe the right thing to do is to let Linus and others try to fix the
existing kbuild, and when/if it doesn't work we have something that
does work.

-- 
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)                The developer of ARM Linux
             http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html

Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Tomas Szepe]

> > > > Third and final attempt.  Original sent on May 2, second mail sent on
> > > > May 14, still no response from Linus.
> > >
> > > Linus is a bastard.  Did you forget?
> >
> > This is getting ridiculous all right.
> > Linus, what makes you ignore Keith's work?
> >
> > Would you tend to think he's worked on kbuild25 this long
> > to end up having to send a linus-dammit-would-you-have-
> > -a-look-at-last-i'm-not-going-to-keep-asking-forever msg?
> 
> People sometimes ignore your messages repeatedly, right? 

That's very difficult to find out, you see. :)

> And Linus is _human too_. Why _demand_ him to answer?
> But we can _ask nicely_. :-) I'd put it this way:

I believe Keith did precisely that three times already.

> I want to inform you that lots of folks here
> would like to know what do you think about kbuild25:
> * "I'll merge it soon"  or
> * "I'll merge it later, not now"  or
> * "I won't merge it because ....."  or
> * other?

Reminds me of the form Bender filled in in "the 30% Iron Chef."
If you've seen that episode. (Only it had the "[ ] and this time
I mean it" checkbox as its last entry.)


T.

Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Miles Lane]

On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 20:30, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> > > Third and final attempt.  Original sent on May 2, second mail sent on
> > > May 14, still no response from Linus.
> > 
> > Linus is a bastard.  Did you forget?
> 
> This is getting ridiculous all right.
> 
> Linus, what makes you ignore Keith's work?
> 
> Would you tend to think he's worked on kbuild25 this long
> to end up having to send a linus-dammit-would-you-have-
> -a-look-at-last-i'm-not-going-to-keep-asking-forever msg?
> 
> Sorry for a slightly offensive post; I can't stand to
> see such impoliteness.

Along the same lines, we have James Bottomly attempting to 
get support for the NCR Voyager architecture added to the
kernel.  His original submission post was sent 2001-12-23:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=100913508007485&w=2
The latest submission attempt was sent 2002-05-11:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102115570805131&w=2

It seems to me that adding a new architecture probably doesn't
impact the rest of the kernel much, so I am not sure way 
acceptance would be so long delayed.  I have noticed that 
there has been minimal feedback to James, which he appears
to have responded to quickly and well.  I tend to think
that any tweaks needed could be accomplished as easily once
the code has been accepted into the kernel tree.

Is there some justification for the delay that I have somehow
overlooked?

	Miles

Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Denis Vlasenko]

On 17 May 2002 01:30, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> > > Third and final attempt.  Original sent on May 2, second mail sent on
> > > May 14, still no response from Linus.
> >
> > Linus is a bastard.  Did you forget?
>
> This is getting ridiculous all right.
> Linus, what makes you ignore Keith's work?
>
> Would you tend to think he's worked on kbuild25 this long
> to end up having to send a linus-dammit-would-you-have-
> -a-look-at-last-i'm-not-going-to-keep-asking-forever msg?

People sometimes ignore your messages repeatedly, right? 
And Linus is _human too_. Why _demand_ him to answer?

But we can _ask nicely_. :-) I'd put it this way:

Hi Linus!

I want to inform you that lots of folks here
would like to know what do you think about kbuild25:
* "I'll merge it soon"  or
* "I'll merge it later, not now"  or
* "I won't merge it because ....."  or
* other?
--
vda

Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Dave Jones]

On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 01:42:44AM -0700, Miles Lane wrote:
 > Along the same lines, we have James Bottomly attempting to 
 > get support for the NCR Voyager architecture added to the
 > kernel.  His original submission post was sent 2001-12-23:
 > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=100913508007485&w=2
 > The latest submission attempt was sent 2002-05-11:
 > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102115570805131&w=2

The best solution for niche x86 architectures is to get x86-subarch
support merged first (See how arch/arm is laid out for an example)
James also has patches to do this, but there are a few other bits
pending in this area right now, such as Patrick Mochels work to split
up some of the larger parts. The bigger chunk of this is in my tree,
and has proven to be ok, so I'm pushing that to Linus sometime real
soon.

With that out of the way, the only remaining work in that area
is of small enough scale (apart from ACPI perhaps) that merging
the subarch support should be a logical progression.
And with that merged, things like Voyager, NUMAQ, and other weirdo
x86en can follow on without disrupting any of the common x86 code
that 99.9% of people will be running.

So it's not being ignored, it's just that trying to fit together
a puzzle whilst all the players want to put a piece in the same
place needs an element of coordination.

    Dave.

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs

Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Denis Vlasenko]

On 17 May 2002 06:17, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> > And Linus is _human too_. Why _demand_ him to answer?
> > But we can _ask nicely_. :-) I'd put it this way:
>
> I believe Keith did precisely that three times already.

One can ask Linus to do something as many times as one wants.
Linus, just like everyone else, may ignore such requests.

You may not like it, but you have to live with it.

It's not about Linus, it's about freedom.
You'd like to be free, right? Then allow others to be free,
even to be free to ignore you. :-)
--
vda

Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Nicolas Pitre]

On 17 May 2002, Kenneth Johansson wrote:

> On Fri, 2002-05-17 at 00:42, Keith Owens wrote:
> 
> > Before I send you the kbuild 2.5 patch, how do you want to handle it?
> 
> Why do you not just make a patch the way that makes most sens to you and
> sent it to him. 

I suggested exactly that to Keith.  but he, too, apparently decided to
exercise his freedom to ignore me.


Nicolas

Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Tomas Szepe]

> > > Before I send you the kbuild 2.5 patch, how do you want to handle it?
> > 
> > Why do you not just make a patch the way that makes most sens to you and
> > sent it to him. 
> 
> I suggested exactly that to Keith.  but he, too, apparently decided to
> exercise his freedom to ignore me.

I can't see any point in sending a patch w/o first negotiating
its acceptance. After all, it can be ignored just like anything
else that comes in thru TCP port 25.

t.


-- 
"when you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."
- god to bender

Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Fri, 17 May 2002, Tomas Szepe wrote:

> > > > Before I send you the kbuild 2.5 patch, how do you want to handle it?
> > > 
> > > Why do you not just make a patch the way that makes most sens to you and
> > > sent it to him. 
> > 
> > I suggested exactly that to Keith.  but he, too, apparently decided to
> > exercise his freedom to ignore me.
> 
> I can't see any point in sending a patch w/o first negotiating
> its acceptance.

If that is not what Keith tried to do for the third time please tell me what 
it is.

> After all, it can be ignored just like anything else that comes in thru
> TCP port 25.

Of course.

Keith gets ignored.  He receives suggestions for alternative ways which he 
ignores too.  I therefore intend to ignore his work as well.

Wonderful!


Nicolas

Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Diego Calleja]

On Fri, 17 May 2002 08:42:18 +1000
Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au> escribió:


So we have a good patch that can make life better for developers and users.

Not to apply it is a *bad* decision. Linus, soon or later, you'll have to
replace the existing kbuild and you know that (it seems you're taking patches about it).

You must have some conflict with Keith, but i don't care about it. So,
if you have to replace the existing kbuild, why re-do it if it's done yet?.

<my suggestions, this doesn't means it's right>

Linus, please tell Keith that he changes kbuild just as you wants, and now. linux
is yours, and you've the right to take this kid of decisions. Leaders are for that.

And Keith, just try to do kbuild just like Linus wants. We'll help you, too. 

But please, we're not to be fools and re-do all the work again. kbuild 2.5 _is_ good
and all of us know that. So, please, please....don't let me think we're being so idiot....



Diego calleja
DiegoCG@teleline.es

Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Keith Owens]

On Fri, 17 May 2002 11:42:26 -0400 (EDT), 
Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
>Keith gets ignored.  He receives suggestions for alternative ways which he 
>ignores too.  I therefore intend to ignore his work as well.

I ignore stupid comments, yours falls into that category.  I have good
reason for asking for Linus's OPINION before sending the patch.  Note I
am not asking Linus to take the patch right now, I am asking for some
guidance.  Unless you have something useful to contribute, I will
continue to ignore you.

Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Sat, 18 May 2002, Keith Owens wrote:

> On Fri, 17 May 2002 11:42:26 -0400 (EDT), 
> Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> >Keith gets ignored.  He receives suggestions for alternative ways which he 
> >ignores too.  I therefore intend to ignore his work as well.
> 
> I ignore stupid comments, yours falls into that category.  I have good
> reason for asking for Linus's OPINION before sending the patch.  Note I
> am not asking Linus to take the patch right now, I am asking for some
> guidance.  Unless you have something useful to contribute, I will
> continue to ignore you.

Well the above was a stupid comment made on purpose to cynically depict the
current situation.  But this answer from you just shows that you don't
necessarily ignore stupid comments...

It just looks like you are failing to obtain guidance from Linus so _maybe_
submiting multiple small patches that can be reviewed from within a mailer
might be easier for someone who already stated his preferences for that
matter.

No offense intended. Really.


Nicolas

Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Keith Owens]

On Fri, 17 May 2002 22:11:10 -0400 (EDT), 
Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
>It just looks like you are failing to obtain guidance from Linus so _maybe_
>submiting multiple small patches that can be reviewed from within a mailer
>might be easier for someone who already stated his preferences for that
>matter.

You still don't get it.  Read my mail.

 "Before I send you the kbuild 2.5 patch, how do you want to handle it?".
 
I am seeking Linus opinion on the next step, not sending the patch yet.

--

Those that can, do.  Those that can't, troll on linux-kernel.

Drivers.conf and kbuild-2.5 [Was: kbuild 2.5 is ready ...]

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 12:19:31PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> 
>  "Before I send you the kbuild 2.5 patch, how do you want to handle it?".
>  
> I am seeking Linus opinion on the next step, not sending the patch yet.

Hi Keith & others

Dunno if you have seen it already, but Linus gave some inputs in:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102170343732408&w=2

As usual he likes the small steps, and I have seen your replies on this
before.

I have browsed a little in the last version I have used of kbuild-2.5.
The core part which I assume is the full engine of kbuild-2.5, touches
42 files. Most if not all of these are new files, and not modifications.
This part I agree cannot be splitted up furhter.

The common part touches a few existing files related to "make dep"
functionality [split-include, mkdep etc.]
Would it make sense to submit them separately to get them understood
and accepted?
The rest is a big bunch of new Makefile.in files, translated versions
of the existing Makefile's.

The architecture specific part contains a mixture of stuff, but only
touches/creates 17 files. Some of this is due to the new install method
introduced.
Would it make sense to submit that part separately, as it may be used with
kbuild-2.4 as well as I see it?

What actually triggered this mail was the old drivers.conf idea.
One way to sell kbuild-2.5 could be to introduce functionality that
was seen as an improvement for the kernel-hackers, and not persons like me.
Does it make sense to introduce limited support for the drivers.conf idea
in kbuild-2.5 already now?
The first step could be to support it in kbuild, next step could be to support
it in for example "make config" or even better mconfig from Michael Chastain.

Here it would make sense to take a gradually approach, and only convert a
single directory as proof of concept. The first version would naturally not
help text and config.in rules as "make config" does not support it.

Allowing this distributed approach getting rid of the centrally located
information could be the incentive required to convince Linus and at the
same time bring Linux one step further in the process of avoiding
centrally located information.


I also considered the possibility to let the two makefile syntaxes co-exist
to avoid creating ~270 new Makefile.in files, but I could not see this as
feasible. The new syntax add a great deal of info that cannot be obtained
by the old format.
IMHO it would also be plain stupid to put a lot of effort in
supporting the old makefile syntax, when the files are already converted.


PS. I'm one of those people that are hit by the errors in the current system.
I forget to run make dep, I fiddle with .config manually without running
make oldconfig etc. etc.
I am aware that people knowing what they are doing are much less hit by the
funnies in the current kbuild system.

	Sam

> 
> --
> 
> Those that can, do.  Those that can't, troll on linux-kernel.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Drivers.conf and kbuild-2.5 [Was: kbuild 2.5 is ready ...]

[Dave Jones]

 > Does it make sense to introduce limited support for the drivers.conf idea
 > in kbuild-2.5 already now?

kbuild-2.5 is big enough to already be a problem to be accepted
'all in one go'. Adding driver.conf support will just make this problem
bigger. What Keith has already needs to somehow be done gradually.

How this happens isn't exactly obvious to me however. Due to the way
things like dependancy calculation have changed, you can't for example
do the merging on a per-directory basis and say "drivers this time",
"now the filesystems" etc..

Whilst kbuild2.5 lives happily with the old kbuild still being in the
tree, it doesn't support building one dir with newstyle, and another
with oldstyle. I don't even want to *think* about whats involved to
make that work, and I imagine Keith doesn't either.

 > The first step could be to support it in kbuild, next step could be to support
 > it in for example "make config" or even better mconfig from Michael Chastain.

Don't confuse the build system with the configuration system.
Whilst they are somewhat intertwined, they are not dependant on each other.
 
 > IMHO it would also be plain stupid to put a lot of effort in
 > supporting the old makefile syntax, when the files are already converted.

That effort has already been done. kbuild2.5 can live alongside the
existing build system.
 
 > --
 > Those that can, do.  Those that can't, troll on linux-kernel.

Sadly, all too true these days.

    Dave.

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs

Re: Drivers.conf and kbuild-2.5 [Was: kbuild 2.5 is ready ...]

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 12:35:46AM +0200, Dave Jones wrote:
>  > Does it make sense to introduce limited support for the drivers.conf idea
>  > in kbuild-2.5 already now?
> 
> kbuild-2.5 is big enough to already be a problem to be accepted
> 'all in one go'. Adding driver.conf support will just make this problem
> bigger. What Keith has already needs to somehow be done gradually.
> 
> How this happens isn't exactly obvious to me however. Due to the way
> things like dependancy calculation have changed, you can't for example
> do the merging on a per-directory basis and say "drivers this time",
> "now the filesystems" etc..
Thats why I tried to identify areas that could be merged even before
kbuild-2.5 got merged.
o "make dep" changes in for example split-include
o install target in config.in for i386
o asm-offset functionality for i386
o kwhich

I see no way to split the core part in smaller parts. It does not make sense
to merge only half of this for example.
The rest of the patch is a huge amount of makefile.in files, and some other
related files.
The patch as such could be splitted in several different ways, but again
it would not make sense to merge that gradually over time.

> Don't confuse the build system with the configuration system.
> Whilst they are somewhat intertwined, they are not dependant on each other.
I do not mix up the purpose of the two systems, but suggesting the
drivers.conf concept makes both systems rely on information in the same file.
Therefore I suggested a two step approach:
1) Let kbuild understand and accept the drivers.conf concept gradually
2) Let the configuration system accept the Drivers.conf concept gradually
With gradually I expect it to be on a directory basis.

>  > IMHO it would also be plain stupid to put a lot of effort in
>  > supporting the old makefile syntax, when the files are already converted.
> 
> That effort has already been done. kbuild2.5 can live alongside the
> existing build system.
What exists now is two parrallel systems. This has the negative effect that 
it fails to show how much old cruft can be removed from the kernel upon 
acceptance of kbuild-2.5. As it is now kbuild-2.5 either modify some
existing files or add some new files.

It would be nice to see how much could be cleaned up from the kernel
upon acceptance of kbuild-2.5.
The makefiles that can be removed alone counts ~2700 lines.

	Sam

Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> Third and final attempt.  Original sent on May 2, second mail sent on
> May 14, still no response from Linus.

In some unrelated thread (something about fixing "BUG()" macro) he
said he'd want it merged in pieces.
									Pavel
-- 
(about SSSCA) "I don't say this lightly.  However, I really think that the U.S.
no longer is classifiable as a democracy, but rather as a plutocracy." --hpa