Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:15:21 +0200
From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why don't we separate menuconfig from the kernel?
Message-ID: <20050919071521.GB14601@merlin.emma.line.org>
Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <m364szk426.fsf@defiant.localdomain> <9a874849050917174635768d04@mail.gmail.com> <m3d5n7kwwz.fsf@defiant.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m3d5n7kwwz.fsf@defiant.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1309
Lines: 30

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:

> > menuconfig is just a little bit of the kbuild system which also
> > includes xconfig, config, gconfig, oldconfig, etc.  menuconfig is just
> > a dialog based frontend to the kbuild system which consists of
> > configuration options, help texts, dependency info etc.
> 
> Sure, that's what I mean. It's used for configuring the kernel, but
> other packages use it (well, some version) too. Example: busybox.

One of Linux's main problems is that all daemons that drive kernel core
functionality are cluttered over various separate projects. While this
allows for independent development, it's annoying if you need to hunt
down the various daemons (udev, autofs, hotplug, iproute, to name the
first that come to mind) only to find out the new version doesn't suit
your distro. I'd rather wish there was a standard kernel "daemons"
package.

> There is no much point in keeping more than one copy. They are

Why should other projects that recycle kernel code impact how the kernel
itself is made.

-- 
Matthias Andree
-
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/