"Next Generation" kernel configuration?

[Conrad J. Sabatier]

On 21-Jul-2004 Brooks Davis wrote:
> You can have my simple flat file kernel config when you pry it from
> my cold, dead hands and I know a number of other develoeprs share
> this viewpoint.  All my experiences with the linux visual kernel
> config tool have been annoying and I've got friends with more
> expierence with it that have much less kind things to say.

Well, the idea is not to replace the current use of a single, flat
kernel config file, only to ease its creation.  The end result would
be essentially the same, although with a slightly different arrangement
of items, of course.

> That said, so long as it doesn't impose too much developer burden,
> an improved set of backend files that did a better job of handling
> dependencies and knew which options where relevent given the
> configured set of devices could be useful.

Yes, I think it's an interesting area for exploration.

> There is a valid question of what a depenency means.  For instance,
> you can't really have IP networking without lo(4) (there's a null
> pointer derefrence if you try), but since you can load it as a
> module, should you have to compile it in?

Hmm, good point.  This will obviously require some careful thinking.

As I told Julian Elischer just now in another (private) reply, I don't
have even the first sketches of such a reorganization on the drawing
board.  I was curious to see how such an idea would be received first.
If there's a lot of resistance (which I could certainly understand), I
won't even bother.  But if there's an interest...I'd certainly be
willing to invest some time in it and see what I could cook up.

So far, no one's yelling "blasphemer!" or anything.  But then it's
still early.  We'll see.  :-)

-- 
Conrad J. Sabatier <conrads at cox.net> -- "In Unix veritas"