Messages in this thread | | | From | "Petr Vandrovec" <> | Date | Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:29:47 MET-1 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fs/nls/Config.in |
| |
On 19 Oct 00 at 11:00, Tom Rini wrote: > --- fs/nls/Config.in.orig Thu Oct 19 09:11:48 2000 > +++ fs/nls/Config.in Thu Oct 19 09:49:53 2000 > @@ -4,8 +4,13 @@ > > # msdos and Joliet want NLS > if [ "$CONFIG_JOLIET" = "y" -o "$CONFIG_FAT_FS" != "n" \ > - -o "$CONFIG_NTFS_FS" != "n" -o "$CONFIG_NCPFS_NLS" = "y" \ > - -o "$CONFIG_SMB_FS" != "n" ]; then > + -o "$CONFIG_NTFS_FS" != "n" -o "$CONFIG_NCPFS_NLS" = "y" ]; then > + define_bool CONFIG_NLS y > +else > + define_bool CONFIG_NLS n > +fi > + > +if [ "$CONFIG_INET" = "y" -a "$CONFIG_SMB_FS" != "n" ]; then > define_bool CONFIG_NLS y > else > define_bool CONFIG_NLS n
It is not correct. At first, duplicated define_bool breaks xconfig (AFAIK), and worse, first test is ignored at all by your code. Maybe something like (untested)
if [ "$CONFIG_SMB_FS" = "m" -o "$CONFIG_SMB_FS" = "y" ]; then define_bool CONFIG_SMB_NLS y else define_bool CONFIG_SMB_NLS n fi
if [ "$CONFIG_JOLIET" = "y" -o "$CONFIG_FAT_FS" != "n" \ -o "$CONFIG_NTFS_FS" != "n" -o "$CONFIG_NCPFS_NLS" = "y" \ -o "$CONFIG_SMB_NLS" = "y"; then define_bool CONFIG_NLS y else define_bool CONFIG_NLS n fi
could work (I did not checked whether CONFIG_FAT_FS & CONFIG_NTFS_FS are always defined). Best regards, Petr Vandrovec vandrove@vc.cvut.cz
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |