[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080503214750.GU5838@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi>
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 00:47:50 +0300
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Ingo, no more kconfig patches
On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 11:17:09PM +0200, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> writes:
>
> > I'm not even sure the semantics of "select follows dependencies"
> > would actually be better than what we have today.
>
> I think it would. But how would that actually work? By displaying all
> relevant dependency chains and asking the user to select one?
Let's look at the problem this thread is about:
menuconfig NEW_LEDS
bool "LED Support"
config LEDS_CLASS
tristate "LED Class Support"
depends on NEW_LEDS # actually an "if", but that's
just syntactical sugar
config X86_RDC321X
bool "RDC R-321x SoC"
select LEDS_CLASS
If you select LEDS_CLASS "select follows dependencies" would let inherit
X86_RDC321X the dependencies of LEDS_CLASS, IOW treat it as:
config X86_RDC321X
bool "RDC R-321x SoC"
select LEDS_CLASS
depends on NEW_LEDS
That might make the randconfig crowd happy.
But from an UI perspective it's not an improvement.
And regarding "displaying all relevant dependency chains" to the user -
I can't see how that would work in the more complicated cases.
> Krzysztof Halasa
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
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