mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: <greg@kroah.com>
Cc: <torvalds@transmeta.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<hpa@zytor.com>, <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.62
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:08:32 -0800 (PST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2018.217.208.70.153.1045696112.squirrel@www.zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030219202754.GA17593@kroah.com>

> On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 09:09:35PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 11:39:07AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
>> >  usr/lib/arch/arm/MCONFIG                        |   26
>> Any good reasons for such a screaming name?
>> makefile.config eventually.
>
> Ask Peter :)

Simply because several other projects I use have MCONFIG files, and I'm
used to the name.

>> >  usr/lib/arch/arm/Makefile.inc                   |   31
>>
>> No extension is used for arch/arm/Makefile
>> Why does klibc differ in this respect?
>> [An answer that tell me that arch/arm/Makefile should
>> change is fine with me..]
>
> Ask Russell :)

Mine, actually: I don't like naming things Makefile unless it's OK to type
"make" in that directory.

>> >  usr/lib/makeerrlist.pl                          |   80
>> >  usr/lib/socketcalls.pl                          |   75
>>
>> This mixture of code and scripts to generate code hursts my eye. What
>> about usr/scripts/.
>
> But they are the scripts used to build the code in usr/lib.  I don't
> care where they go, that's just where they were in the klibc tarball.

Quite frankly, I think this is a bogus request.  The .pl extension flags
these, but if you think about it, there really is no difference between
"code" and "scripts that generate code" -- each is a form of source code,
just compiled by different programs.

>> I assume you do not want them in scripts/
>
> Yeah, I wouldn't think they should go their either.

No, that would completely suck.

usr/lib/tools would be semi-acceptable, but quite frankly I think it
really is just complexity for complexity's sake.  I also happen to believe
that when it comes to aestetic judgements (which *all* of these objections
are!) it should be primarily a choice of the people maintaining the code,
and perhaps Linus.

    -hpa




      reply	other threads:[~2003-02-19 22:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-02-19 19:39 Greg KH
2003-02-19 20:09 ` Sam Ravnborg
2003-02-19 20:27   ` Greg KH
2003-02-19 23:08     ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=2018.217.208.70.153.1045696112.squirrel@www.zytor.com \
    --to=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=greg@kroah.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rmk@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®