Re: Why is CONFIG_VT forced on?

[Al Viro]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 09:27:50PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:

> > Your complaint is basically that the same thing is forcing all of those on
> > in default configs.
> 
> No, my complaint was that kconfig basically has the concept of symbols that turn
> _off_ something that is otherwise on by default ("Disable X" instead of "Enable
> X"), but it was implemented it in an awkward way then allowed to scale to silly
> levels, and now the fact it exists is being used as evidence that it was a good
> idea.

Where and by whom?

> I had to work out a way to work around this design breakage, which I did and had
> moved on before this email, but I thought pointing out the awkwardness might
> help a design discussion.

What design discussion?  Where?

> My mistake.

Generally a passive-aggressive flame (complete with comparisons to INTERCAL)
and not a shred of reference to any design issues in it tends to
be rather ineffecient way to start such discussion...

> The thread _started_ because menuconfig help has a blind spot (which seemed like
> a bug to me, it _used_ to say why), and then I found the syntax you changed a
> year or two back non-obvious when I tried to RTFM but that part got answered.

_I_ have changed???  What the hell?  I have never touched kconfig syntax in any
way; what are you talking about?  Care to post commit IDs in question?