On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:39:50PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:09:00PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:02:49PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > Every now and then a project is born, and they decide to use Linux's > > > kconfig to enable configuration of their project. As it stands we *know* > > > kconfig is now used in at least over 12 different projects [0]. I myself > > > added kconfig to one as well years ago. Even research reveals that > > > kconfig has become one of the leading industrial variability modeling > > > languages [1] [2]. > > > > > > What is often difficult to do though is to start off using kconfig and > > > integrating it into a project. Or updating / syncing to the latest > > > kconfig from upstream Linux. > > > > > > I had yet another need to use kconfig for another small project so > > > decided to make a clean template others can use and help keep it in sync. > > > This is a passive fork which aims to keep in sync with the Linux > > > kernel's latest kconfig to make it easier to keep up to date and to > > > enable new projects to use and embrace kconfig on their own. The goal > > > is *not* to fork kconfig and evolve it separately, but rather keep in > > > sync with the evolution of kconfig on Linux to make it easier for > > > projects to use kconfig and also update their own kconfig when needed. > > > > Is there a *fundamental* reason that we couldn't have this *be* Linux > > kconfig, whether pulled in by submodule or regular merges, and avoid > > having any divergence at all? > > The structure of kconfig in Linux would have to be changed to make > adoption and sync easier. If that is a goal we wish to embrace, I'm > all for it. I would *love* to see Kconfig in Linux evolved to be more easily reused.
