Michael Elizabeth Chastain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> My two cents:
>
> I'm in favor of a new description language.
>
> I'm in favor of new tools for processing it.
If you, wearing your CML1 maintainer hat, hadn't made these things clear
a year ago ago, CML2 wouldn't exist today.
> I'm comfortable with Python as an implementation language. The speed
> problems seem to be under control.
Linus is comfortable with it too. That argument seems to be over for
everyone but Jes Sorensen. In any case, Greg Banks is tracking the
Python implementation in C (though I don't think he has the theorem
prover working yet).
> It would be nice if either (a) the tools ran with Python 1.5.2 or (b)
> some more time elapses and lots more people have Python 2.0 installed.
I think we'll get (b). 2.5 will be bleeding edge by definition; I'm not
worried about anyone working on an unstable branch being unable to
install Python 2.0. And 2.6 is 18 to 24 months out. By the time
Python 2.0 is needed for a stable-branch build, it will be ubiquitous.
> I think the transition to a new language is so big that anything
> controversial about the config files themselves should not be part of
> the transition. Just translate the CML1 files directly into CML2.
> If someone says "such-and-such is yucky", the defense is: "the CML2
> version is less yucky or equally yucky as CML1 was".
That's exactly the approach I've taken until very recently. But the
compiler and configurator codebase is stable now. It seemed to me
time to think about improving the rulebase.
I started this "CML2 design philosophy heads-up" precisely because I
didn't want to redesign the rulebase without a lot of input and
explicit discussion.
> Let the arch maintainers be in charge of their files.
I'm totally in favor of that. No way do I want to maintain the
rulebase myself!
--
<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation
should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of
criminal acts reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so
after a century and a half of trying -- that they must sweep under the
rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the
northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both
Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 -- establishes the repeated,
complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.
-- Senator Orrin Hatch, in a 1982 Senate Report
_______________________________________________
kbuild-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
