Re: [KBUILD] Re: Announcing CML2, a replacement for the kbuild system

From: Alexander Viro (viro@math.psu.edu)
Date: Fri May 26 2000 - 21:27:06 EDT

  • Next message: Stephen Rothwell: "Re: [PATCH] APM stuff"

    On Fri, 26 May 2000, Eric S. Raymond wrote:

    > One of the purposes of making the CML2 language declarative rather than
    > imperative is to make all the dependencies explicit, rather than implied
    > by control structure as in CML1. Because that's so, over time it will
    > be possible to improve the deductive algoritms in the front end without
    > having to endure another replacement of the language.

    Sigh... I suspect that it's the real reason why your approach doesn't make
    sense to me - you are developing complex stuff that works for FUBAR domain
    instead of getting the domain fixed.

    Try to grep the tree for CONFIG_FOO - you'll see that most of the places
    that care are in Makefiles. 99% of the rest is not needed - check the
    history of fs/filesystems.c for example.

    IOW, instead of developing clever ways to handle complex dependencies
    we'ld be better off simplifying them and leaving the rest to make(1)...

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 26 2000 - 21:36:32 EDT