Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 17:47:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 17:47:20 -0500 Received: from dsl254-112-233.nyc1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.254.112.233]:48091 "EHLO snark.thyrsus.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 17:47:01 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 17:31:51 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Legacy Fishtank , Dave Jones , "Eric S. Raymond" , Marcelo Tosatti , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: State of the new config & build system Message-ID: <20011228173151.B20254@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com Mail-Followup-To: "Eric S. Raymond" , Linus Torvalds , Legacy Fishtank , Dave Jones , "Eric S. Raymond" , Marcelo Tosatti , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <20011228141211.B15338@thyrsus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from torvalds@transmeta.com on Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 02:11:37PM -0800 Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds : > On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > I'm not certain what you're objecting to, and I want to understand it. > > There are rules that use architecture symbols to suppress things like > > bus types. I presume that's not a problem for you, but tell me if it is. > > It _is_ a problem for me, because I want to do "diffstat" on a patch from > a PPC maintainer, and if I see anything non-PPC, loud ringing > noises go off in my head. I want that diffstat to say _only_ > > arch/ppc/... > include/asm-ppc/... > > and nothing else. That way I know that I don't have to worry. Perhaps we're talking past each other. I don't understand your objection yet, and I want to so I can design (or redesign) to meet it. When I talk about "rules that use architecture symbols to suppress things like bus types" I have in mind things like this: unless X86 suppress dependent MCA EISA unless MIPS32 suppress dependent TC unless (PCI and (X86 or SUPERH)) suppress pci_access unless (ISA or PCI) suppress dependent IDE unless PCI suppress dependent USB HOTPLUG_PCI unless (X86 or ALPHA or MIPS32 or PPC) suppress usb unless (X86 and PCI and EXPERIMENTAL) or PPC or ARM or SPARC suppress dependent IEEE1394 unless (M68K or ALL_PPC) suppress MACINTOSH_DRIVERS unless SPARC suppress dependent FC4 unless ARCH_S390==n suppress buses It seems to me *extremely* unlikely that a typical patch from a PPC maintainer would mess with any of these! They're rules that are likely to be written once at the time a new port is added to the tree and seldom or ever changed afterwards. Thus I really don't think you have to worry about spurious spikes in your diffstat. The root rules.cml file will not change very often -- I know this is true, because I can look at the RCS history since I broke it out in response to your request at the Kernel Summit and *see* that changes have been few and sparse. > In contrast, if it starts talking about Documentation/Configure.help and > the main config file, I start worrying. Rightly so in the latter case. Configure.help patches shouldn't worry you, I don't think. It's not like they can actually break anything. > For example, that MATHEMU thing is just ugly. It was perfectly fine in the > per-architecture version, now it suddenly has magic dependencies just > because different architectures call it different things, and different > architectures have different rules on when it's needed. It sounds to me like you're agreeing that it *shouldn't* be called different things, and thus with my goal of cleaning this mess up the rest of the way. Yes? No? Guidance, please. I am, as ever, willing to meet your concerns. But I have to understand clearly what they are in order to do that. -- Eric S. Raymond "...The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document. The First Amendment doesn't say you have a right to speak out unless the government has a 'compelling interest' in censoring the Internet. The Second Amendment doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear arms until some madman plants a bomb. The Fourth Amendment doesn't say you have the right to be secure from search and seizure unless some FBI agent thinks you fit the profile of a terrorist. The government has no right to interfere with any of these freedoms under any circumstances." -- Harry Browne, 1996 USA presidential candidate, Libertarian Party - 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/