From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:23:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:23:28 -0500 Received: from louise.pinerecords.com ([213.168.176.16]:41616 "EHLO louise.pinerecords.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:23:27 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:32:12 +0100 From: Tomas Szepe To: "Robert P. J. Day" Cc: Linux kernel mailing list Subject: Re: why the new config process is a *big* step backwards Message-ID: <20030113153212.GB12500@louise.pinerecords.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > [rpjday@mindspring.com] > > (apologies to those who are thoroughly sick of this topic, but > i'm now firmly convinced that i don't much care for the new > config process, and i'm curious as to whether it's just me. > Answer: probably.) Robert, please study scripts/kconfig/*, not how one particular frontend is. The new kernel configurator is actually a big improvement over the traditional stuff we used to have up to 2.4. Okay, it is a fact that xconfig is far from great, but that doesn't matter -- the important thing is Kconfig provides a clean, generic system for the actual kernel configuration. As I already pointed out a fortnight ago or so, the only config frontend likely to stay in linux.tar in the long run is menuconfig, serving as a reference to userland people who are certain to come up with heaps of different Kconfig frontends (that is when 2.6 ships I guess). If you need a nifty graphical frontend right away, I suggest you go ahead and write the first off-tree xconfig. -- Tomas Szepe