Robert P. J. Day wrote: > 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.
In other words, the author of a Kconfig file should not assume he knows best how users want to configure kernels. IMO Kconfig files should be nothing more than a list of the existing options with statements how they depend on each other, plus the inline help texts, plus one default logical grouping (e.g. Drivers -> SCSI -> most of the SCSI drivers). All the rest, i.e. supporting users to get to the desired configuration, should be left to the various UIs to Kconfig --- including the bidirectional tracking of dependencies, presentation in different logical groups than the default one, etc. However, the trend here seems to be to turn Kconfig into a _program_ (a script rather than a description), and to tune that program to the needs of a subgroup of Kconfig endusers. > I'm just sayin'. Me 2. -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== -=-- -==-- http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - 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/
