* more thoughts on kernel config organization
@ 2003-01-12 4:17 Robert P. J. Day
2003-01-12 8:04 ` Sam Ravnborg
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2003-01-12 4:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux kernel mailing list
since i've been whining about the (in some places, very
non-intuitive) layout of kernel configuration options, i'm
going to play with designing a different structure for some
of the submenus. and number one on my list is the filesystems
menu, which is pretty thoroughly random.
starting at what seems to be a pretty arbitrary choice
(quota support? how did that end up at the top of the list?),
we then get "automounter" (again, a bit premature, it seems),
then reiserfs(??), and a bunch of experimental filesystems
before getting to ext3, which doesn't really flow well.
then we jump to DOS filesystems, bounce around a bit more,
on to JFS (why is this not next to reiserfs?), etc, etc.
and, near that bottom of the list, ext2??
how about something like
ext2
ext3
reiser
XFS
JFS
quotas
MS/DOS related filesystems
MD-DOS
VFAT
NTFS
other OS-related filessytems
Apple
ADFS
BeOS
BFS
QNX
System V/XENIX/...
Pseudo(?) filessytems
/proc
/dev/pts
/dev
etc, etc. i know i'm leaving plenty out since i'm typing this
stream-of-consciousness. but you get the idea. i'd like to see
the most common choices at the top of the list, and the uncommon/
legacy/experimental further down, where fewer people will care
about that stuff.
also, there are at least a couple places in that xconfig
meny that seem incorrectly-structured. example: ext3 -> JBD.
JBD is a sub-option of ext3, but it shows up at the same
indentation level. it should, based on hierarchy, be one
level indented, at the same level as ext3 extended attributes
to be a proper sub-option.
same complaint about VFAT being a sub-option of DOS FAT fs
support, but not being indented properly.
thoughts?
rday
p.s. i guess i could just learn the menu-layout language
and mock something up, just for fun.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: more thoughts on kernel config organization
2003-01-12 4:17 more thoughts on kernel config organization Robert P. J. Day
@ 2003-01-12 8:04 ` Sam Ravnborg
2003-01-12 9:22 ` Robert P. J. Day
2003-01-12 17:12 ` Roman Zippel
2003-01-13 12:32 ` Dave Jones
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Sam Ravnborg @ 2003-01-12 8:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert P. J. Day; +Cc: Linux kernel mailing list
On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 11:17:46PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> how about something like
>
> ext2
> ext3
> reiser
> XFS
> JFS
> quotas
> MS/DOS related filesystems
> MD-DOS
> VFAT
> NTFS
> other OS-related filessytems
> Apple
> ADFS
> BeOS
> BFS
> QNX
> System V/XENIX/...
> Pseudo(?) filessytems
> /proc
> /dev/pts
> /dev
I like the structure proposed above. I for myself has often wondered why
ext2 was not named ext2, and hidden between lots of less used stuff.
If you sort in alphabetic order, then be consistent.
If you are going to reorganise fs/Kconfig I would suggest moving
ext3, reiserfs etc. specific stuff down in their respective directories,
and then source as appropriate.
There is no reason to keep that in a centralised placed, when it can
be distributed.
For simple (Kconfig wise) stuff like CODA or Intermezzo keep them
in fs/KConfig.
Sam
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: more thoughts on kernel config organization
2003-01-12 8:04 ` Sam Ravnborg
@ 2003-01-12 9:22 ` Robert P. J. Day
2003-01-12 10:03 ` Tomas Szepe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2003-01-12 9:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sam Ravnborg; +Cc: Linux kernel mailing list
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 11:17:46PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > how about something like
> >
> > ext2
> > ext3
> > reiser
> > XFS
> > JFS
> > quotas
> > MS/DOS related filesystems
> > MD-DOS
> > VFAT
> > NTFS
> > other OS-related filessytems
> > Apple
> > ADFS
> > BeOS
> > BFS
> > QNX
> > System V/XENIX/...
> > Pseudo(?) filessytems
> > /proc
> > /dev/pts
> > /dev
>
> I like the structure proposed above. I for myself has often wondered why
> ext2 was not named ext2, and hidden between lots of less used stuff.
> If you sort in alphabetic order, then be consistent.
>
> If you are going to reorganise fs/Kconfig I would suggest moving
> ext3, reiserfs etc. specific stuff down in their respective directories,
> and then source as appropriate.
> There is no reason to keep that in a centralised placed, when it can
> be distributed.
> For simple (Kconfig wise) stuff like CODA or Intermezzo keep them
> in fs/KConfig.
a couple hours ago, i posted an alternate fs/Kconfig file, but i haven't
seen it appear on the mailing list. is there a size limit for postings?
is there another way to make it available for anyone who wants to check
it out?
rday
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: more thoughts on kernel config organization
2003-01-12 9:22 ` Robert P. J. Day
@ 2003-01-12 10:03 ` Tomas Szepe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tomas Szepe @ 2003-01-12 10:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert P. J. Day; +Cc: Sam Ravnborg, Linux kernel mailing list
> [rpjday@mindspring.com]
>
> a couple hours ago, i posted an alternate fs/Kconfig file, but i haven't
> seen it appear on the mailing list. is there a size limit for postings?
> is there another way to make it available for anyone who wants to check
> it out?
Make the re-arranged Kconfig a unidiff against latest bk, check that
everything compiles as expected and send it here. If the diff turns
out large (it probably will), gzip it.
--
Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: more thoughts on kernel config organization
2003-01-12 4:17 more thoughts on kernel config organization Robert P. J. Day
2003-01-12 8:04 ` Sam Ravnborg
@ 2003-01-12 17:12 ` Roman Zippel
2003-01-13 12:32 ` Dave Jones
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Roman Zippel @ 2003-01-12 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert P. J. Day; +Cc: Linux kernel mailing list
Hi,
"Robert P. J. Day" wrote:
> also, there are at least a couple places in that xconfig
> meny that seem incorrectly-structured. example: ext3 -> JBD.
> JBD is a sub-option of ext3, but it shows up at the same
> indentation level. it should, based on hierarchy, be one
> level indented, at the same level as ext3 extended attributes
> to be a proper sub-option.
>
> same complaint about VFAT being a sub-option of DOS FAT fs
> support, but not being indented properly.
You always have to remember that the dependency information is used to
generate the menu structure. If you enable "Show All Options" in
xconfig, you can easily find out what's preventing a correct menu
structure. E.g. for VFAT you have two possibilities, move down the
UMSDOS_FS entry or add "depends on FAT_FS" to it.
If you want one config entry to appear as a child of another entry, it
must have at least that other entry in its dependency list.
bye, Roman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: more thoughts on kernel config organization
2003-01-12 4:17 more thoughts on kernel config organization Robert P. J. Day
2003-01-12 8:04 ` Sam Ravnborg
2003-01-12 17:12 ` Roman Zippel
@ 2003-01-13 12:32 ` Dave Jones
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dave Jones @ 2003-01-13 12:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert P. J. Day; +Cc: Linux kernel mailing list
On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 11:17:46PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> starting at what seems to be a pretty arbitrary choice
> (quota support? how did that end up at the top of the list?),
> we then get "automounter" (again, a bit premature, it seems),
> then reiserfs(??), and a bunch of experimental filesystems
> before getting to ext3, which doesn't really flow well.
> then we jump to DOS filesystems, bounce around a bit more,
> on to JFS (why is this not next to reiserfs?), etc, etc.
> and, near that bottom of the list, ext2??
At one point I'm sure it was alphabetically ordered.
As time as gone on, it's turned into arbitary placement..
Dave
--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-01-13 12:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-01-12 4:17 more thoughts on kernel config organization Robert P. J. Day
2003-01-12 8:04 ` Sam Ravnborg
2003-01-12 9:22 ` Robert P. J. Day
2003-01-12 10:03 ` Tomas Szepe
2003-01-12 17:12 ` Roman Zippel
2003-01-13 12:32 ` Dave Jones
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox