Re: kconfig - a suggestion how to fix the select issue
From: David Collier-Brown
Date: Sun May 04 2008 - 08:57:37 EST
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
[Snipped]
The suggestion is to introduce a "require" term used
like this:
config A
bool "a"
config B
bool "b"
depends on A
config C
bool "c"
require B
The require dependency will have impact on visibility.
C shall only be visible if all symbols it require are
visible. Note that visible does not imply 'chosen'.
In this case C would be visible when A is chosen.
When the user then choose C and B is not chosen
then the user is prompted to choose B.
So user has to chose B in order to have C chosen.
This would make it visible for the user that choosing
a camera had the side-effect that USB had to be enabled too.
But if we have some general option that prevents the
visibility of USB we would not be offered the camara
in the first place
In the example you suggest, the user would not see the
option of choosing the camera at C unless they selected
USB at A, and would wonder where the camera disappeared
to...
I speculate that having two ways to express a dependency,
and the addtition of visibility control makes the
dependency tree-walk into a problem which is no longer
solvable in trivial logic. That in turn makes my head
explode (;-))
I wonder if one could simplify back into a flat set of
selections without visibility rules and a backwards-
chaining "you need to select these too" message emitter,
and if that would be worthwhile.
--dave (who used to do formal logics) c-b
--
David Collier-Brown | Always do right. This will gratify
Sun Microsystems, Toronto | some people and astonish the rest
davecb@xxxxxxx | -- Mark Twain
(905) 943-1983, cell: (647) 833-9377, (800) 555-9786 x56583
bridge: (877) 385-4099 code: 506 9191#
--
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/