[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080504123710.GA24008@flower.upol.cz>
Date:	Sun, 4 May 2008 14:37:10 +0200
From:	Oleg Verych <olecom@...wer.upol.cz>
To:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
	linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kconfig - a suggestion how to fix the select issue
Sam,
> > Given:
> > - CONFIG_A=y
> > - CONFIG_B=n
> > - CONFIG_D=y
> > - CONFIG_E=n
> > 
> > Will C be visible?
> The above has a syntax error. A 'depends on' cannot have an
> if caluse.
would you please write logic rules with more neutral language, like
(A || B) && C
or similar. Depencies (forward or backward) can be described as
SYM_FOO <- { # depencies/value
  ($SYM_DEP1 || !$SYM_DEP2) && $SYM_DEP3=xx
  # implicit or
  $SYM_DEP4 || $SYM_DEP5
} -> { # selects
  SYM_2SELECT1 = $SYM_BAR ? foo_bar : bar_for
  SYM_2SELECT2 = bar; SYM_BA; SYM_ZZ
# SYM_BA && SYM_ZZ will have value of SYM_FOO
}
or something.
> And I did not get your point either.
I try to design TUI now for better multidimensional walking/selecting on
the web of symbols and decencies, and i don't get those kconfig
constructs.
> Are you trying to say that we cannot improve kconfig to better
> express the dependencies or what is your point?
> 
> Puzzeled...
Thanks.
____
--
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