lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] new kconfig goodies
From
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:0.056 / U:0.796 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site