In article <20000527004434.A6569@work.bitmover.com> you wrote:
> A few observations:
> a) I liked where Viro (I hope it was he) was going with the comment made
> a while back that said the real problem wasn't in the config language
> but was in how it was applied. I'm probably saying it wrong but that
> sentiment seemed like it was worth following up. If it is true, then
> this whole discussion is a solution in search of a problem - anyone
> care to comment on that?
I can say from expirience that the current CONFIG_LANGUAGE is not up to the
task the current kernel expects from it. The kernel wants (and does) say
"this options X depends on option Y", but sometimes, the CONFIG_Y question
is not yet asked (in make config) so the dependency just borks right now.
Moving stuff around doesn't help, as that would lead to other "misplaced"
dependencies.
It is possible, of course, to extend the config language with a "requires"
option, that is scanned at the end and questions are asked again. (In fact,
I did a patch for this once).
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 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:17 EST