Re: Configure.help i18n system

[Francois Romieu <romieu@cogenit.fr>]

Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl <Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl> ecrit :
[...]
> (i) The kernel has high visibility, and work on the kernel
> [even if only on the Documentation subdirectory] has high "prestige".
> As a consequence, parts of the kernel tree are kept much better
> up-to-date than documentation found elsewhere.

Why would quality be lowered if instead of trying and push a Configure.help 
patch to an already busy Linus, one should notify the maintainer ?
Simply because it doesn't gain the same "prestige" to the author ?
*big pain*

I don't forget your proc.5/bootparam.7 argument but it's not the same
point imho.

[...]
> (ii) So far, building a kernel involved getting a single tarball.
> If the help for over a thousand configuration options is found
> a hundred different places on the net, of which five are currently
> unreachable, things get really cumbersome.

Not everybody reads a thousand configuration options entry.
If I want a kernel tailored for a specific machine, I keep a .config
somewhere, make oldconfig and so on. I don't read a Configure.help
entry that hasn't changed for months. Documentation/Changes is enough.
If I want to build the usual "does everything compile?" kernel, the
Configure.help entry isn't that needed.
If it's the first time I compile a kernel, $DISTRIBUTION could include 
the extra package somewhere. Outdated ? We aren't talking about people 
working with testing versions thus I doubt it's really a problem.

> The current system is not so bad.

Yes. However, the point of "Configure.help doesn't belong to core"
makes sense (as long as it doesn't prevent compile).

--
Ueimor