Re: Linux 2.5.70 compile error

[Dave Jones (davej@codemonkey.org.uk)]

On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 02:59:23PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:

 > > Given that 99% of users will be choosing option 1, it might be a
 > > good thing to have the remaining options only shown if a
 > > CONFIG_X86_SUBARCHS=y and have things default to option 1 if =n.
 > 
 > Please, not more layered config options! That just makes people who
 > want to enable the x440 or other alternative platform require fair
 > amounts of psychic power (maybe this can be fixed with a big fat help
 > message, but so can the current method).

With all due respect, 'screw x440 et al'. The fact remains that a
majority of users won't even know what an x440 _is_, let alone
need to configure for one.  If someone has actually ended up with
one of those, I'd like to think they at least have enough clue to
know what it is they've just spent their megabucks on.		

 > If you're going hide the other options away so much, then the default
 > should be the generic arch, IMHO.

That's precisely what I was saying.  I think we're in agreement,
in a roundabout 'same but different' sort of way. I think.

		Dave

-
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/