Re: [kbuild-devel] Re: CML2-2.1.3 is available

Re: [kbuild-devel] Re: CML2-2.1.3 is available

[Giacomo Catenazzi]

Daniel Phillips wrote:

> 
> I detect a slight lack of symmetry here, shouldn't it be "make autoconfig"?
> Pardon me if this has been beaten to^W^W discussed above.


Yes. It should be "make autoconfig", for symmterty reasons :-)
I called the files and the project autoconfigure, because
'autoconfig' is already an utility made by GNU. (not related
to kernel)

	giacomo

Re: [kbuild-devel] Re: CML2-2.1.3 is available

[Daniel Phillips]

On January 21, 2002 06:05 pm, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> Daniel Phillips wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I detect a slight lack of symmetry here, shouldn't it be "make
> > autoconfig"? Pardon me if this has been beaten to^W^W discussed above.
> 
> 
> Yes. It should be "make autoconfig", for symmterty reasons :-)
> I called the files and the project autoconfigure, because
> 'autoconfig' is already an utility made by GNU. (not related
> to kernel)

This is kernel autoconfig, different namespace, same idea.  I don't think you 
have a problem.  Besides, last time I checked, autoconfig wasn't copyrighted.

--
Daniel

Re: [kbuild-devel] Re: CML2-2.1.3 is available

[Kai Henningsen]

phillips@bonn-fries.net (Daniel Phillips)  wrote on 22.01.02 in <E16Snav-0001kl-00@starship.berlin>:

> On January 21, 2002 06:05 pm, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> > Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I detect a slight lack of symmetry here, shouldn't it be "make
> > > autoconfig"? Pardon me if this has been beaten to^W^W discussed above.
> >
> >
> > Yes. It should be "make autoconfig", for symmterty reasons :-)
> > I called the files and the project autoconfigure, because
> > 'autoconfig' is already an utility made by GNU. (not related
> > to kernel)
>
> This is kernel autoconfig, different namespace, same idea.  I don't think
> you have a problem.  Besides, last time I checked, autoconfig wasn't
> copyrighted.

Last time I checked, autoconf (not -ig) was GPL. But as long as you don't  
use code from it, copyright is completely irrelevant anyway: trademark  
status might be relevant when you're talking about names. (And %@$&$!  
patent status when talking about algorithms.)

MfG Kai

Re: [kbuild-devel] Re: CML2-2.1.3 is available

[Giacomo Catenazzi]

Kai Henningsen wrote:

> phillips@bonn-fries.net (Daniel Phillips)  wrote on 22.01.02 in <E16Snav-0001kl-00@starship.berlin>:
>>On January 21, 2002 06:05 pm, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
>>
>>This is kernel autoconfig, different namespace, same idea.  I don't think
>>you have a problem.  Besides, last time I checked, autoconfig wasn't
>>copyrighted.
>>
> 
> Last time I checked, autoconf (not -ig) was GPL. But as long as you don't  
> use code from it, copyright is completely irrelevant anyway: trademark  
> status might be relevant when you're talking about names. (And %@$&$!  
> patent status when talking about algorithms.)
> 

No problem on copyright, licences,...
I choose (for the file names, not for the 'make autoconfig') a
longer name, to distinguish the kernel autoconfig from the
GNU autoconf (without the final 'ig').
Only for pratical reasons.

If autoconfigure will go in the kernel, I have not problems on
filenames, but when I initially created it, I thinked ev. to
distribuite it as a package. Here the name matter.

IMHO longer filename ia a good things (iff normal user should
not type it).

	giacomo

Re: CML2-2.1.3 is available

[Keith Owens]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:11:10 +0100, 
Giacomo Catenazzi <cate@debian.org> wrote:
>If autoconfigure will go in the kernel, I have not problems on
>filenames, but when I initially created it, I thinked ev. to
>distribuite it as a package. Here the name matter.
>
>IMHO longer filename ia a good things (iff normal user should
>not type it).

autoconf autoconfigure: symlinks
        $(CONFIG_SHELL) scripts/....

make autoconf == make autoconfigure.

Watch out for the generated autoconf.h file, it might confuse some
people.

Re: [kbuild-devel] Re: CML2-2.1.3 is available

[Daniel Phillips]

On January 22, 2002 12:11 am, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On January 21, 2002 06:05 pm, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> > Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > 
> > > I detect a slight lack of symmetry here, shouldn't it be "make
> > > autoconfig"? Pardon me if this has been beaten to^W^W discussed above.
> > 
> > Yes. It should be "make autoconfig", for symmterty reasons :-)
> > I called the files and the project autoconfigure, because
> > 'autoconfig' is already an utility made by GNU. (not related
> > to kernel)
> 
> This is kernel autoconfig, different namespace, same idea.  I don't think
> you have a problem.  Besides, last time I checked, autoconfig wasn't 
> copyrighted.

Oh wait, the 'real autoconf' is called autoconf, not autoconfig (duh) so 
there is no reason at all to avoid 'make autoconfig'.

--
Daniel