Re: CML2 design philosophy heads-up

From: David Weinehall (tao@acc.umu.se)
Date: Tue May 08 2001 - 01:57:40 EST


On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:56:18PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>:
> > Only sort-of. There are some cases where you can get away with
> > that. Probably. eg If you ask for PARPORT, on x86 that means yes
> > to PARPORT_PC, always (right?)
>
> Yes. So the right answer there isn't to use a derivation but to say:
>
> require X86 and PARPORT implies PARPORT_PC
> unless X86==n suppress PARPORT_PC
>
> which forces PARPORT_PC==y and makes the question invisible on X86
> machines, but leaves the question visible on all others.

Yes, but there are quite a lot of people who don't want
parport/serial/whatever compiled into their kernels at all,
eventhough they have an x86. Think low-memory systems or similar.

/David
  _ _
 // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 15 2001 - 21:00:11 EST