Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751077AbVIRKgG (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Sep 2005 06:36:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751074AbVIRKgF (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Sep 2005 06:36:05 -0400 Received: from khc.piap.pl ([195.187.100.11]:8196 "EHLO khc.piap.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751077AbVIRKgE (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Sep 2005 06:36:04 -0400 To: "Martin Fouts" Cc: , Subject: Re: Why don't we separate menuconfig from the kernel? References: From: Krzysztof Halasa Date: 18 Sep 2005 12:36:03 +0200 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4 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: 754 Lines: 12 "Martin Fouts" writes: > I don't have a patch yet, but I've just spent a bit of time looking at > how kbuild works, and I believe there is a fairly straightforward way to > keep kbuild in the kernel tree but make it easy to split it out so that > someone could use it as a separate tool. That is obvious and people already are doing that, what I'm thinking of is moving menuconfig or *config out of the kernel so there is one well-defined external package. -- Krzysztof Halasa - 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/