Re: [RFC 01/29] build: import Kbuild/Kconfig from Linux 4.2

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>]

On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 03:54 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 07.10.15 at 10:23, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On 07/10/2015 09:19, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 00:32 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > On 06.10.15 at 18:47, <cardoe@cardoe.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 10/6/15 7:45 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > Also, btw - I don't think we should name the thing Kconfig in
> > > > > > Xen;
> > > > > > Xconfig would be odd too (to be confused with X), so maybe
> > > > > > XenConfig?
> > > > > I forgot to answer the 2nd paragraph in my last reply. Sticking
> > > > > to
> > > > > Kconfig was actually intentional to make it easy for us to stay
> > > > > in sync
> > > > > with upstream development of Kconfig.
> > > > How would a difference in names significantly hamper that?
> > > It doesn't seem to me that cosmetic differences like file names are
> > > worth
> > > forking over, even if the actual patch to do so would be trivial (I
> > > don't
> > > know if it is or not).
> > > 
> > > The language and the tool which implements it is called Kconfig (or
> > > kconfig), the fact that K may once-upon-a-time have meant Kernel
> > > doesn't
> > > seem terribly relevant to me.
> > 
> > I concur.  Keeping it called kconfig will allow more people to know
> > exactly what it is.
> 
> Just for the record - my objection wasn't so much to the tool's
> name than to the names of the individual files the tool is to
> consume (hence also the use of respective upper case letters
> above).

I don't think that is worth forking/deviating over either, not by a long
shot. The tool is call kconfig and it reads files called Kconfig.

Ian.