On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Tim Waugh wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > This Config.in is executed _AFTER_ the config-option in question is
> > asked, so $CONFIG_PARIDE_PARPORT is undefined at the moment of the
> > question (making the dependency moot). Obviously, the dependency
> > should be on CONFIG_PARPORT instead.
>
> I don't think that's quite right. The idea of CONFIG_PARIDE_PARPORT was
> to express the fact that if CONFIG_PARPORT=n, PARIDE has no dependency on
> it (and so can be m or y), but otherwise it will depend on CONFIG_PARPORT.
Ok. Woops.
> I happen to think that this is icky, and I've _seen_ it lead to problems.
> Would anyone object if, in 2.5, I remove PARIDE's 'do-it-yourself' code
> and make it just PARPORT regardless? This would get rid of some fairly
> sticky code in PARIDE as well.
So you agree to the patch after all, because with this patch, the
PARIDE-do-it-yourself code is always disabled.
Greetings,
Arjan van de Ven
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:28 EST