Re: AW: [Xbox-linux] cvs cromwell build

[Michael S. <st...@in...>]

On Oct 30, 2003, at 11:53 AM, Oskar Liljeblad wrote:
> However, I must interpret your email as saying that cromwell
> most likely cannot (and will not) be improved by anyone else
> but you or Edgar.

This is unfortunately correct, because Cromwell is very complex. And 
unfortunately there is no external documentation about the source, but 
Franz told me that there is plenty documentation _inside_ the source, 
which can be very helpful.
The idea is not to keep other out, it is a fact that it is hard to get 
inside.

> You suggested that there were many areas of cromwell that I could
> work on. But I see no point in improving/fixing these parts of
> cromwell since you so blatantly rejected these simple Makefile
> modifications. Somehow I have the feeling that other changes would

The point is: These were not _simple_.

> be rejected as well, in the same way. One would believe that if any
> changes were simple and safe to apply, it would be those made to
> makefiles/the build system. But I understand that's not the case
> now.

The build system is the most volatile part of a complex project, 
especially if it is a ROM or a kernel.

There are parts that are a lot simpler in Cromwell: all those that do 
not deal with boot stability at all, that is, all "user" code, like 
file system routines. Franz suggested you take a look at the 
ext2/Reiser issue.

Disclaimer: I'm not Franz, I'm trying to rephrase what Franz would say.

   Michael