archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Bradford <>
Subject: RE: why the current kernel config menu layout is a mess
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:53:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)

> > Anyway, going back to the re-design of the kernel configurator, maybe
> > we have simply reached the practical limit of the simple menu based
> > system?
> i see no evidence of that.  i think Kconfig works fine.  i just
> think it's not being used in as structured a way as it might be.
> > There are now so many options that you either have a lot of options
> > under vague headings, (which I prefer because I think that once you're
> > used to it, it's quicker and simpler), or, (in my opinion), excessive
> > levels of abstraction, and options deep within submenus, like:
> > 
> > Buses -> Internal -> Legacy -> ISA
> i just want to point out that i never suggested *this* level of
> sub-menuing

We are approaching it anyway, with more and more options being added.

> , but even if i had, so what?  typically, when you
> rebuild a kernel, you don't go through the entire menu tree every
> time.  you typically want to tweak an option or two, so having
> an extra level every so often is not going to be fatal.

Wrong.  I compile kernels for lots of different machines, all the
time.  I'm not just sat in front of one box, recompiling more or less
the same kernel all day.  They are usually each configured from
scratch, except when there are several identical boxes.

> what's important, i think, is to be able to look at the top-level
> menu and be able to deduce quickly where to find the option you're
> interested in.  (pop quiz:  without looking, where would you find
> the option for the ftape floppy driver?  see?)

Character devices.  No, I didn't look first, by the way.  It's been
there since at least 1.2.X.

> (aside:  i'm just breathless that someone could make a statement
> like "a lot of options under vague headings (which I prefer ..."
> you *prefer* vagueness?

YES!!!  Because it's only vague for people who aren't used to it.

> someone help me out -- is mr. bradford really this clueless, or is
> he just trolling at my expense?  i'm pretty naive at times.)

Try looking at:

* My previous contributions to this list

* The bug database I've spent six months working on, on and off.

* My website

You decide whether I am a 'troll' or not.

> > There are also complications with taking configurations from old
> > kernel versions, and using them with later kernels - a 2.4 config
> > typically won't work simply by using make oldconfig on a 2.6 tree.
> oh, puhleeze.  going from one major, stable release to the next one
> should be considered such a big step that you shouldn't be surprised
> if you might have to do a whole, fresh kernel configuration perhaps
> that one time.

Please don't talk down to me.  The new users who you seem to be trying
to help, may well want to use their existing .config as a base for
their new one - moving from their distribution's 2.4 kernel to the 2.6
kernel may be the whole reason that they suddenly want to compile
their own kernel, whereas they have been happy with their
distribution's one up until now.

> > Maybe a completely new, out of kernel tree configurator would be worth
> > thinking about, leaving the in-kernel configurator as a legacy option.
> > I know the config system underwent a major overhaul during 2.5, but I
> > think we could go even further.
> that does it.  it's .procmailrc time for mr. bradford.  life is too
> short to listen to people criticize things they don't even
> understand.

Although I might criticize things, I provide code to back up my
criticisms.  I didn't like the kernel Bugzilla, so I wrote an
alternative.  More people use the kernel Bugzilla than my bug
database, so quite possibly I was wrong, _but_ instead of posting
hypothetical questions to this list, I wrote an alternative.  It's
been mentioned in Kernel Traffic, a Linux magazine, and on lots of


             reply	other threads:[~2003-07-25 15:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-07-25 15:53 John Bradford [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-07-25 15:28 why the current kernel config menu layout is a mess John Bradford
2003-07-25 14:58 John Bradford
2003-07-25 15:07 ` Roman Zippel
2003-07-25 15:26 ` Robert P. J. Day
2003-07-25 15:51   ` Tomas Szepe
2003-07-25 16:11   ` Herbert Pötzl
2003-07-25 13:18 Frederick, Fabian
2003-07-25  0:56 Robert P. J. Day
2003-07-25  1:27 ` Bernd Eckenfels
2003-07-25 12:46   ` Robert P. J. Day
2003-07-25 14:10     ` Tomas Szepe

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:

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

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).