Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> > Since the information is there in CML1 to generate the list of constraints
> > for any given option, its a reasonable assertion that the entire CML2
> > language rewrite is self indulgence from a self confessed language invention
> > freak.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are express two different types of
> situations, and CML1 isn't sufficient to express the second:
>
> 1) CONFIG_FOO_OPTION requires CONFIG_FOO
>
> 2) CONFIG_SUBSYS2 requires CONFIG_SUBSYS1
>
> The reason why #2 is different, is the desired prompting and symbol
> behavior for the end user.
>
> If CONFIG_SUBSYS1=m or "", and CONFIG_SUBSYS2=y or m, then we gotta
> change the value of CONFIG_SUBSYS1 and options underneath
> CONFIG_SUBSYS1. Re-prompt for CONFIG_SUBSYS1, perhaps?
IMHO that is a issue with the current *tools*, not with the CML1
*language*. The information about the dependences is there, a more
clever tool than "make config" can use them to present a better UI.
I have a 5-year-old perl script for kernel configuration, maybe
I should try to reactivate it and see ...
Gerd
-- #define ENOCLUE 125 /* userland programmer induced race condition */ - 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 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:10 EST