From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:58:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:58:52 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([63.209.29.3]:53186 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:58:50 -0500 Message-ID: <2018.217.208.70.153.1045696112.squirrel@www.zytor.com> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:08:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.62 From: "H. Peter Anvin" To: In-Reply-To: <20030219202754.GA17593@kroah.com> References: <20030219193907.GA17248@kroah.com> <20030219200935.GB1623@mars.ravnborg.org> <20030219202754.GA17593@kroah.com> X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Cc: , , , X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.7) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > 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