I see from hear http://http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2012/07/msg00362.html there is a discussion going on about make it easier to configure the kernel.

I have my own thought I wanted to put out on the web since I don't like mailing list and would like to talk about here in hope it will git back to them as well as to see what other know about it.

My idea

• split Default config option into small target files
  [we could have a basic boot config with would include all serial drive need and along with all file system might want)
  
  
• create 2 directory for config witch could be selected from menu config( one for distribution config and anther for user overrides)
• have it so you can select multiple config file (Or in other word Treat config files like configure option)
• ask for distribution to start supplying a config tarball witch would include a minimal and full build config target.
  
• split kernel building and module building up a little more.
  one thing i hate on Linux is that most distribution package the kernel and module together(please correct me if I wrong) If you forget a module you have to recompile the whole thing. If you don't change the kernel (if you don't build a module into it or if don't remove support for a feature like cgroups or anything else like that) you should be able to rebuild the need module(s). IMHO modules should be package separate and people should call it an error to do other wise. I would love it if there was make dpk-mod target(please forgive me if there is I had no luck finding it).
  
• add custom run config option that would run a script that would build a package for the distributions

Basically I want to split the config up into smaller more manageable parts one for the typical uses(a default config) and One for more advance option user overrides.


I have read one person on the mailing list say that Linux has two many option witch i be leave is true.

I also be leave that what make it powerful and very hard to manage. I think is a common approach to split thing up into smaller more manageable task when thing git to big like the kernel is now what are people options?

Dose any one hear of any more info on the plain on improving the way the kernel is handle?

Depends on how you put it. I read it as Linus polling the list for the feasibility of having distribution-specific .configs.


While the LKML and other mailing lists don't come across as inviting you have to remember that list users are human and they are there for practical reasons. If you have common sense, know netiquette and list specifics you don't necessarily need to don an asbestos suit. If it's too much you could always email one of the kernel team. From experience I know they're approachable and friendly.


In my book git is a RCS. If you didn't want to talk about revision control systems then you probably meant to use the word "get" and that is what you should do.


You're (IMHO) making the mistake of valuing your own convenience over what would benefit all kernel compilers (I would definitely oppose separated kernel and LKM building) and you seem to miss information about how distributions handle things (distribution-specific Kconfigs so far are their own or repo / 3rd party responsibility). More importantly, unlike the first mailing list message you don't have a detailed, specific problem definition as starting point. If you don't have that, see how Linus describes his, then offering implementation suggestions doesn't make sense: if the final solution contains one or two directories or has a gazillion small files or one large one or not is utterly unimportant.