Good day, all,
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Tom Rini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Perhaps that wasn't quite the right words. Statement for Statement and
> > no additional restrictions on questions.
>
> Statement for statement is not going to happen, simply because the structure
> of the old and new languages is different.
>
> What invariant or behavior are you trying to preserve with "no additional
> restrictions"? Most of the additional restrictions are bus guards, so that
> (for example) users won't see EISA questions on a non-EISA system. Is this
> a bad thing?
In Eric's defense, I added a number of those rules after looking
through source code, help text and web sites for information on which
busses a particular device could possibly be used. If there are mistakes
in these, they're mine and not Eric's. I'd be glad to fix any mistakes
that show up and Eric has been good about merging the fixes.
My goal was to allow User-Mode Linux to declare that it had no
physical busses at all and have all hardware devices disappear; at the
time that I did the work, that goal was realized.
Cheers,
- Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I give up, how DO you keep a mathematician busy for 350 years?"
-- Pierre de Fermat's friend
(Courtesy of Tim Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Stearns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Mason, Buildkernel, named2hosts,
and ipfwadm2ipchains are at: http://www.pobox.com/~wstearns
LinuxMonth; articles for Linux Enthusiasts! http://www.linuxmonth.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
kbuild-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
