Re: [patch] 2.6.0-test5: serio config broken?

[Roman Zippel]

Hi,

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Tom Rini wrote:

> > If neither is selected, then the problem is essentially the same as the one
> > which Mr. Rini pointed out.  And again there are other possible
> > possibilities such as n, n, n, n.
> > 
> > Solution:  Surely plain "make" could start by checking dependencies.  Or
> > maybe "make dep" could be reincarnated.  If there is any inconsistency, then
> > the Makefile could issue an error and refuse to start compiling.
> > 
> > This has the added benefit that if the human has some reason to edit the
> > .config file by hand instead of using a make [...]config command, plain
> > "make" will have a chance of catching editing errors.
> > 
> > This doesn't automate a solution as thoroughly as either of you were hoping
> > for; it honestly admits that it can't read the human's mind  :-)
> 
> Yes, even that would work quite nicely, perhaps while saying what the
> specific problem is as well.  Roman, how hard would this be to do?

The check happens already and it will ask for any missing option.
You have to define what "inconsistency" means, right now the kconfig 
design makes ambigous configurations impossible (provided that there are 
no recursive dependencies, which kconfig warns about). I have no plans to 
give up this property, as it keeps kconfig reasonably simple, it's already 
complex enough as is.

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/