[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0705151006360.9570@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 10:08:19 +0200 (MEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To: Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
cc: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.22-rc1
On May 15 2007 08:32, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On 5/15/07, Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
>> Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>> > Am 14.05.2007 22:33 schrieb Jan Engelhardt:
>> > > * Disabling this menu disables all the fluff inside it,
>>
>> except when it doesn't.
Blame CONFIG_EMBEDDED!
>> If menuconfig isn't used with strict discipline, we end up with
>> inconsistent and misleading presentation of the kernel configuration.
>
> Yes, this really requires discipline on the part of those who add new
> config options, to also "depends on" the menuconfig they're inside,
> otherwise we end up with inconsistencies. We can't really make this
> automatic, or can we?
Well more or less yes. Instead of adding 'depends on' on every subconfig
object, just wrap the whole thing into an if block:
menuconfig FOOBAR
if FOOBAR
config FOO
config BAR
endif # FOOBAR
Since this is still edgy, an implicit if-endif block could be added as
part of the menuconfig. Sort of like the old menu:
menuconfig FOOBAR
config FOO
config BAR
endmenu
Robert P.J. Day had some solid ideas about this.
Jan
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists