From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 17:47:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 17:46:42 -0400 Received: from hera.cwi.nl ([192.16.191.8]:63363 "EHLO hera.cwi.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 17:46:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 23:46:20 +0200 (MET DST) From: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Message-Id: To: ramsy@linux.or.jp, torvalds@transmeta.com Subject: Re: Configure.help i18n system Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I wonder if the Configure.help text should not possibly be even _more_ > distributed than just splitting it up into different files. It might very > well be acceptable to actually distribute it over the net (and have just > a mapping of config options into www-addresses or something). I think this is a bad idea. (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. (I have been trying for years to find people willing to do something to the very outdated ioctl_list.2 or proc.5 or bootparam.7.) When distributed, very quickly Configure.help would be outdated, and of very uneven format and quality. (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. The current system is not so bad. Andries