Re: [PATCH] arm Kconfig fixes

[Roman Zippel]

Hi,

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> BTW, AFAICS a legitimate form of negative dependency is && (!FOO || BROKEN)
> and it's common enough to consider adding a separate
> 	broken if <expression>
> to config language.  It would be interpreted as && (!<expr> || BROKEN) added
> to dependencies, but would document the situation better.

It looks ok, but the part I wouldn't like is to hardcode this into the 
parser, if someone comes up with a decent syntax to define this 
dynamically, it would be ok with me.

bye, Roman
-
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/