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

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.

CML2-2.1.3 is available

[Eric S. Raymond]

The latest version is always available at <http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2/>.

Release 2.1.3: Tue Jan 15 14:41:45 EST 2002
	* Resync with 2.4.18-pre3 and 2.5.2.
	* It is now possible to declare explicit saveability predicates.
	* The `vitality' flag is gone from the language.  Instead, the 
	  autoprober detects the type of your root filesystem and forces
	  its symbol to Y.

The interactive configurators remain stable; no bugs of any kind have been 
reported since 6 Jan.  I'm waiting on an update of the probe tables from
Giacomo Catenazzi before releasing 2.2.0.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies
to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule--and
both commonly succeed, and are right... The United States
has never developed an aristocracy really disinterested or an
intelligentsia really intelligent. Its history is simply a record
of vacillations between two gangs of frauds. 
	--- H. L. Mencken

Re: CML2-2.1.3 is available

[Russell King]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 02:53:24PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> 	* The `vitality' flag is gone from the language.  Instead, the 
> 	  autoprober detects the type of your root filesystem and forces
> 	  its symbol to Y.

This seems like a backwards step.  What's the reasoning for breaking the
ability to configure the kernel for a completely different machine to the
one that you're running the configuration/build on?

Answers including Aunt Tillies or Penelopes won't be accepted. 8)

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

Re: CML2-2.1.3 is available

[Rob Landley]

On Tuesday 15 January 2002 03:25 pm, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 02:53:24PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > 	* The `vitality' flag is gone from the language.  Instead, the
> > 	  autoprober detects the type of your root filesystem and forces
> > 	  its symbol to Y.
>
> This seems like a backwards step.  What's the reasoning for breaking the
> ability to configure the kernel for a completely different machine to the
> one that you're running the configuration/build on?

He didn't.  If you want to do that, run "make menuconfig" instead of "make 
autoconfigure".

Autoprobing is just another tool at your disposal, you don't have to use it.  
And you can probe for your hardware and then menuconfig what it found (run 
"make autoconfig menuconfig"., and see my previous post for a small gripe 
about this. :)

> Answers including Aunt Tillies or Penelopes won't be accepted. 8)

Trust me, if I thought there was ANY code I could write that would make cute 
single women start using the Linux kernel en masse...

Right now I'm going for reformed MCSEs who are still largely clueless but now 
have Linux+ certification and a boss who wants to spend his department's six 
figure budget on something OTHER than a microsoft audit.  Autoprobing might 
help us convert a few of that crowd.

Rob

Re: CML2-2.1.3 is available

[Daniel Phillips]

On January 15, 2002 08:37 pm, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 January 2002 03:25 pm, Russell King wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 02:53:24PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > > 	* The `vitality' flag is gone from the language.  Instead, the
> > > 	  autoprober detects the type of your root filesystem and forces
> > > 	  its symbol to Y.
> >
> > This seems like a backwards step.  What's the reasoning for breaking the
> > ability to configure the kernel for a completely different machine to the
> > one that you're running the configuration/build on?
> 
> He didn't.  If you want to do that, run "make menuconfig" instead of "make 
> autoconfigure".

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.

--
Daniel

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

[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