David> On 28 Sep 1999, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> Oh this was not meant to be a perfect running example, I am just
>> pointing out the principle. However someone changed
>> fs/partition/Config.in because of exactly this, recently. The
>> result was that things got messed up for non x86 architectures
>> again and had to be mended by hand.
David> But menuconfig is totally innocent, I can't see why you keep
David> blaming things on it. xconfig is the villain here. Oh, I did
David> some of the changes in fs/partition/Config.in, so if you want
David> to blame someone, it's probably me you should blame. I did it
David> to make the code readable, properly indented (this failed,
David> however, because of (guess what?) xconfig being unable to have
David> multiple entries for the same config-option.
Maybe it was xconfig _this_ time, I don't know. However menuconfig
still has a long history of problems, like when it forgot to take
default values of new config options into account.
David> Oh, and while you don't test make menuconfig or make xconfig, I
David> don't test make config or make oldconfig, so... There is a
David> place for at least two of them. In my opinion, xconfig isn't
David> really worth keeping, because it's not functional anyway. But
David> hopefully, Michael E. Chastain's new program will cure this.
make config & oldconfig are _the_ references, if you make changes to
Config.in files you really should test them.
Jes
-
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/