lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Disgusted with kbuild developers
Date
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> > Since the information is there in CML1 to generate the list of constraints
> > for any given option, its a reasonable assertion that the entire CML2
> > language rewrite is self indulgence from a self confessed language invention
> > freak.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are express two different types of
> situations, and CML1 isn't sufficient to express the second:
>
> 1) CONFIG_FOO_OPTION requires CONFIG_FOO
>
> 2) CONFIG_SUBSYS2 requires CONFIG_SUBSYS1
>
> The reason why #2 is different, is the desired prompting and symbol
> behavior for the end user.
>
> If CONFIG_SUBSYS1=m or "", and CONFIG_SUBSYS2=y or m, then we gotta
> change the value of CONFIG_SUBSYS1 and options underneath
> CONFIG_SUBSYS1. Re-prompt for CONFIG_SUBSYS1, perhaps?

IMHO that is a issue with the current *tools*, not with the CML1
*language*. The information about the dependences is there, a more
clever tool than "make config" can use them to present a better UI.

I have a 5-year-old perl script for kernel configuration, maybe
I should try to reactivate it and see ...

Gerd

--
#define ENOCLUE 125 /* userland programmer induced race condition */
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.087 / U:0.532 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site