From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 13:37:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 13:37:08 -0400 Received: from router-100M.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.17]:28942 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 13:36:53 -0400 Subject: Re: [kbuild-devel] Re: CML2 design philosophy heads-up To: esr@thyrsus.com Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 18:33:15 +0100 (BST) Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox), kaos@ocs.com.au (Keith Owens), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (CML2), kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <20010518123413.I14309@thyrsus.com> from "Eric S. Raymond" at May 18, 2001 12:34:13 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Do you really believe that anyone is going to maintain the CML1 tools > for as long as a nanosecond after they get dropped out of the kernel tree? Do you really believe anyone would be dumb enough to delete them out of spite or to further your political machinations if they could both handle the same configuration language. CML1 has had no official maintainer for about 4 years. People contribute bits and it works. So as it stands there would be no reason to remove it.