[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191231035319.GE4203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 03:53:19 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why is CONFIG_VT forced on?
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 09:27:50PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Your complaint is basically that the same thing is forcing all of those on
> > in default configs.
>
> No, my complaint was that kconfig basically has the concept of symbols that turn
> _off_ something that is otherwise on by default ("Disable X" instead of "Enable
> X"), but it was implemented it in an awkward way then allowed to scale to silly
> levels, and now the fact it exists is being used as evidence that it was a good
> idea.
Where and by whom?
> I had to work out a way to work around this design breakage, which I did and had
> moved on before this email, but I thought pointing out the awkwardness might
> help a design discussion.
What design discussion? Where?
> My mistake.
Generally a passive-aggressive flame (complete with comparisons to INTERCAL)
and not a shred of reference to any design issues in it tends to
be rather ineffecient way to start such discussion...
> The thread _started_ because menuconfig help has a blind spot (which seemed like
> a bug to me, it _used_ to say why), and then I found the syntax you changed a
> year or two back non-obvious when I tried to RTFM but that part got answered.
_I_ have changed??? What the hell? I have never touched kconfig syntax in any
way; what are you talking about? Care to post commit IDs in question?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists