Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: bug in 2.3.18ac9 net/Config.in | From | Jes Sorensen <> | Date | 28 Sep 1999 16:34:00 +0200 |
| |
>>>>> "David" == David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> writes:
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/
| |