Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] new kconfig goodies | From | Andreas Schwab <> | Date | Wed, 14 May 2003 22:56:24 +0200 |
| |
Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> writes:
|> Hi, |> |> On Tue, 13 May 2003, Miles Bader wrote: |> |> > BTW, the name `enable' seems to be a misnomer -- `enable' implies that it |> > forces the depends to be y, but not that it also forces the _value_. |> > |> > Why not have two: |> > |> > enable FOO - forces the `depends' value of FOO to y |> > but it will still prompt |> > force FOO - forces both the `depends' and value of FOO to y |> > prompting for FOO is turned off |> |> I don't really like "force", it's IMO a bit too strong and too unspecific |> (although enable is here only a bit better). The first I'd rather call |> "visible", but I don't see a need for this and I wouldn't immediately know |> how to support this, a config entry can have multiple prompts and every |> prompt has its own dependencies, so which one should I enable? It would |> probably be easier to enable/force the dependencies so the prompt becomes |> visible. |> |> But I'm open to suggestions for a better name, "select" might be a good |> alternative. Other ideas? Opinions?
How about "override"?
Andreas.
-- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." - 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/
| |