Re: [patch] 2.6.0-test5: serio config broken?

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:06:06PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Tom Rini wrote:
> 
> > > If neither is selected, then the problem is essentially the same as the one
> > > which Mr. Rini pointed out.  And again there are other possible
> > > possibilities such as n, n, n, n.
> > > 
> > > Solution:  Surely plain "make" could start by checking dependencies.  Or
> > > maybe "make dep" could be reincarnated.  If there is any inconsistency, then
> > > the Makefile could issue an error and refuse to start compiling.
> > > 
> > > This has the added benefit that if the human has some reason to edit the
> > > .config file by hand instead of using a make [...]config command, plain
> > > "make" will have a chance of catching editing errors.
> > > 
> > > This doesn't automate a solution as thoroughly as either of you were hoping
> > > for; it honestly admits that it can't read the human's mind  :-)
> > 
> > Yes, even that would work quite nicely, perhaps while saying what the
> > specific problem is as well.  Roman, how hard would this be to do?
> 
> The check happens already and it will ask for any missing option.
> You have to define what "inconsistency" means, right now the kconfig 
> design makes ambigous configurations impossible (provided that there are 
> no recursive dependencies, which kconfig warns about). I have no plans to 
> give up this property, as it keeps kconfig reasonably simple, it's already 
> complex enough as is.

So long as it doesn't involve 'select', it won't let you be
inconsistent, yes.  How exactly are items that come in from a select
evaluated right now?

-- 
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/