On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Masao Uebayashi wrote: > I've found that the difficulty of understanding config(5) is due to its > flexibility; it can do one thing in many ways. You can define a collection > of sources with define, defflag, device, defpseudo{,dev}, devfs. OTOH you > can only write dependency on attributes (define). Another example is, you > can write interface with define, device, defpseudodev. > > I'd propose to make a rule to simplify things (at the cost of a little > redundancy of config(5) files).
Allright. I have to ask: If the plan is to go to a dynamically probed system with loadable modules, why keep config around at all? It's only useful for custom kernels. Why is it useful to give config a facelift instead of doing away with it entirely? Eduardo