Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Feb 2002 23:57:05 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: Disgusted with kbuild developers |
| |
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? If CONFIG_SUBSYS1=y, value of CONFIG_SUBSYS2 isn't affected If CONFIG_SUBSYS1="" and CONFIG_SUBSYS2="", then we gotta prompt for CONFIG_SUBSYS1, but -after- CONFIG_SUBSYS2 is prompted for.
I was tempted to introduce a "requires" token to express dependencies between subsystems, because I feel they are different from the other dependencies present,
Jeff
-- Jeff Garzik | "I went through my candy like hot oatmeal Building 1024 | through an internally-buttered weasel." MandrakeSoft | - goats.com - 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/
| |