SNIP > > Okay, so the problem is that we don't have a simple binary-state > feature in this case, but three possible states: 'libunwind', or > 'libdw-dwarf-unwind', or 'OFF', right? > > If so then the solution would be to replace those 3 last lines with > just this line: > > ... DWARF unwind library: [ libunwind ] > > Where 'libunwind' is printed in green (like the 'on' lines are > printed). If there's no suitable library available then output: > > ... DWARF unwind library: [ OFF ] > > Because the user looking at the output is really only interested in > 'is an unwind library available', and maybe in 'which one'. > > Is there preference between library choices? I.e. is 'libunwind' > preferred over 'libdw-dwarf-unwind', or the other way around? If yes > then if we pick an inferior library we could print it in yellow color > - and only use green if it's the 'best' choice. > > That way the color codes also still keep working: red means problem, > green means OK, yellow something inbetween.
sounds good.. TODO list updated ;-) > > But in any case we should try to keep the 'one feature, one line' > fundamental output concept. > > ( Under V=1 we can output whatever details might be useful to > developers, there's no restriction on what to output there. ) thats what we put VF for.. maybe we should for verbose features code detection output for V=1 as well jirka -- 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/
