On Tuesday 08 April 2003 09:54 am, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On 8 Apr 2003, Cedric Blancher wrote: > > My 0.02¤ about this is that I personaly prefer a configuration > > script that reflect reality, than something more "user convenient" > > that could fool people about the way things work. Netfilter insides, > > as well as kernel insides, are already complicated enough to me, for > > I do not need stuff that could make me misunderstand something. > > Reality is that NAT depends on conntrack. Your point would be to > > invert this for user's sake, and this is, imho, a baaaaad thing ;) > > > > I don't know if any of them are reading this thread, but if we could > > have some core developper's point of vue about his, would be great. > > > > It is a very tough subject to discuss how kernel configuration must > > be presented. I wouldn't show nerd's behaviours, e.g. dumb users do > > not compile kernel, but I tend to think that if someone wants to > > build its own kernel, then it's up to him to (try to ?) understand > > how it is going and what are the choices he's about to make. > > yes, i agree with this. i think i'll just ponder how to reorganize > that menu to, first of all, have more informative help screens and, > second, to add what i *think* we agree on is some missing > dependencies. Reorganization and clearer help texts would be nice. If the long-term intention is to 'simplify', I really think a more popular approach would be to offer multiple levels of detail. In my first response I suggested "make easyconfig" - that grew out of a conversation I had some time ago regarding the complexitly of configuring a kernel prior to build. Make oldconfig can be helpful, but the ability to pull in the configuration of the current runnning kernel, set it as the base, then offer looser, more generalized selections that hide the lower levels would be helpful for the 'casual' builder. If we want to make kernel building reasonable for the 'average' windows emigre then such an approach would seem useful. And I think that needs to be a consideration. I for one would enjoy clearer (or even extant!) help texts in the config process, and reorganization of options might help, but I want to have access to everything, not have config questions spoon-fed. OT - are there any plans to bring video card options together, instead of the current scheme where they are scattered through Character Devices, Multimedia Devices, and Console Drivers? > rday > > p.s. is the rest of this list also getting auto-vacation messages > from respond-dgour? just wondering if it's coming from *this* > list. Yes, it is. As of about 8 months ago I have a filter to auto-delete them. Every few months they seem to start up again. (must be nice to get that many vacations, some for several weeks! :^) j
