From: "Robert P. J. Day" <email@example.com>
To: John Bradford <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, Fabian.Frederick@prov-liege.be,
Subject: RE: why the current kernel config menu layout is a mess
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:26:17 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, John Bradford wrote:
> Anyway, going back to the re-design of the kernel configurator, maybe
> we have simply reached the practical limit of the simple menu based
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, 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.
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?)
(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? someone help me out -- is mr. bradford
really this clueless, or is he just trolling at my expense? i'm
pretty naive at times.)
> 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.
> 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-07-25 15:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-07-25 14:58 why the current kernel config menu layout is a mess John Bradford
2003-07-25 15:07 ` Roman Zippel
2003-07-25 15:26 ` Robert P. J. Day [this message]
2003-07-25 15:51 ` Tomas Szepe
2003-07-25 16:11 ` Herbert Pötzl
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-07-25 15:53 John Bradford
2003-07-25 15:28 John Bradford
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
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).