Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:33:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:33:57 -0400 Received: from smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.141]:32526 "EHLO smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:33:54 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 20:39:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@serv To: Christoph Hellwig cc: "Randy.Dunlap" , Linus Torvalds , Brendan J Simon , linux-kernel , kbuild-devel Subject: Re: [kbuild-devel] Re: linux kernel conf 0.8 In-Reply-To: <20021009174038.A960@infradead.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 876 Lines: 23 Hi, On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Why don't you just separate the library from the kernel at all, making > it a similar package. We depend on a few external, kernel-specific > packages anyway, and depending on libkconfig wouldn't make the situation > worse. The problem is that the config syntax will continue to evolve and currently I prefer to keep the library close to the matching config files. I think I can keep the basic structure constant, but new options will be added, so IMO it's more likely that a front end works with a newer library than that a library can understand a newer syntax. bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/