Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:43:54 +0200 (MET_DST) | From | David Weinehall <> | Subject | Re: bug in 2.3.18ac9 net/Config.in |
| |
On 28 Sep 1999, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >>>>> "David" == David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> writes: > > David> On 28 Sep 1999, Jes Sorensen wrote: > >> Now the questions is really why nobody fixes menuconfig > >> instead. It seems that for every little irrelevant change either > >> menuconfig or xconfig breaks for whatever stupid thing. If the > >> situation is not improved we really should remove them from the > >> kernel tree, they seem to cause more grief than good. > > David> The principle shit in - shit out quite reasonably applies to > David> both, eventhough there are quite a lot of nasty bugs in xconfig > David> (or at least missing features)... > > David> It's better to fix the Config.in files than to blame > David> menuconfig/xconfig each time... After all, we don't blame make > David> if there are errors in the Makefile's. > > So we hack Config.in because menuconfig is broken, that really sounds > like a stupid solution to me. > > Having the following in Config.in is _not broken: > > if [ "$ARCH" = "ppc"] > bool "foo" CONFIG_SOME_RANDOM_THING > fi > if [ "$ARCH" = "mips"] > bool "bar" CONFIG_SOME_RANDOM_THING > fi > > Is _not_ broken as long as the condition cannot invoke the question > twice. This is just one example of brokenness in the menu based config > programs.
As long as you add the proper ';then' to those if's, it works ok with menuconfig too, if I'm not all wrong... It's just xconfig that doesn't work.
/David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\ // Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
- 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/
| |