Re: [kbuild-devel] Converting the 2.5 kernel to kbuild 2.5

Tom Rini
2001-12-04T15:41:17Z

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 02:29:58PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 08:16:40AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > N separate implementations means N dialects and N**2 compatibility problems.
> > Nicer just to have *one* parser, *one* compiler, and *one* service class that
> > supports several thin front-end layers, yes? No?
>
> Oh man. When you think one implementation of a 'standard' is better then
> multiple go to the MS world.

Wouldn't multiple tools which don't quite work to a 'standard' better
represent the MS world? Which is what all of the cml1 tools do.

> > > All of these tools just require the runtime contained in the LSB and no
> > > funky additional script languages. Also none needs a binary intermediate
> > > representation of the config.
> >
> > I quote Linus at the 2.5 kernel summit: "Python is not an issue."
> > Unless and until he changes his mind about that, waving around this
> > kind of argument is likely to do your case more harm than good.
>
> For me (and others) it is an issues.

Why?

> > If you want to re-open the case for saving CML1, you'd be better off
> > demonstrating how CML1 can be used to (a) automatically do implied
> > side-effects when a symbol is changed,
>
> With mconfig it can be implemented easily - I don't see the point in
> doing it, though.

To show that CML1 doesn't need to die yet.

> > (b) guarantee that the user
> > cannot generate a configuration that violates stated invariants, and
>
> What do you mean with that?

That you can't turn on CONFIG_FOO_BAR unless CONFIG_FOO is on. This is
getting at things like USB V4L devices which need CONFIG_USB and
CONFIG_VIDEODEV set to !n. This is done poorly in CML1.

> > (c) unify the configuration tree so that the equivalents of arch/*
> > files never suffer from lag or skew when an architecture-independent
> > feature is added to the kernel.
>
> One toplevel config file can be implemented in CML1 easily,
> using mconfig or the old and ugly tools, it's just a question of changeing
> the rule base in tree.

Lots of changing of the Config.in files.

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)