On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Carlo Florendo wrote: > Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > (in short, if i, the builder, explicitly choose *not* to add a > > certain feature to my build, i think i have every right to expect that > > some other part of my configuration isn't quietly going to put some > > sub-choice of that feature back in behind my back.) > > I agree with this. However, if another feature actually depends on > another explicitly unselected feature, there should at least be a > warning prompt that such is the case. > > It probably would be hard though to track all dependencies.
i can't imagine this is a widespread problem in the tree -- i mean, we keep using CONFIG_EMBEDDED as an example, and we mostly agree that that's just a bad design, anyway. but it should be obvious that, if you look at the Kconfig files, each and every "select" directive has the potential to override a decision you think you might have made elsewhere. I'm just sayin'. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page ======================================================================== - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/