lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2007 04:09:41 +0530
From:	"Satyam Sharma" <>
To:	"Randy Dunlap" <>
Cc:	"Jeff Garzik" <>,
	"Roman Zippel" <>,
	"Krzysztof Halasa" <>,
	"Russell King" <>,
	lkml <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] WAN Kconfig: change "depends on HDLC" to "select"

On 5/8/07, Randy Dunlap <> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 16:31:48 -0400 Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > Yes, mixing select and depends is a recipe for build disasters. Call
> > > me a rabid fanatic, but I would in fact go as far as to say that this
> > > whole "select" thing in the Kconfig process is one big BUG, and not a
> > > feature. People are lazy by nature and would rather just "select" a
> > > dependency for their config option than burden users with several
> > > "depends".
> >
> > Tough, the kernel community has voted against you.
> Andrew (usually) implores people not to use "select" and I agree
> with him.
> > It makes far more sense to include a driver during kernel configuration,
> > and have that driver pull in its libraries via 'select'.  The lame
> > alternative requires developers to know which libraries they need BEFORE
> > picking their drivers, which is backwards and requires legwork on the
> > part of the kernel developer.
> Developers?  If you had said "users," I might agree, but IMO it's
> OK (or even Good) for developers to know what libraries their code
> uses/requires.  Yes, that's a good thing.

You're absolutely right, but to give Jeff the benefit of the doubt I'm
sure he _meant_ "users" there although he said "developers". Stating
the obvious, the developer _has_ to know what stuff his code uses
anyway, otherwise what does he "select"s or "depends" his config
option on.

As for users, we _can_ avoid pitfalls by building a complete
dependency tree and just selecting _everything_ that we require for a
particular config option to be selected, but some users could
conceivably prefer only being _told_ about what else they need to
successfully pick a config option (than everything just getting in
behind their backs). Actually (correct me if I'm wrong), this is not
presently possible: an option is not visible unless dependencies are
already picked. Just a suggestion, though.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists