lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.119 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site