Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 May 2003 21:51:56 +0200 (CEST) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] new kconfig goodies |
| |
Hi,
On Tue, 13 May 2003, Miles Bader wrote:
> BTW, the name `enable' seems to be a misnomer -- `enable' implies that it > forces the depends to be y, but not that it also forces the _value_. > > Why not have two: > > enable FOO - forces the `depends' value of FOO to y > but it will still prompt > force FOO - forces both the `depends' and value of FOO to y > prompting for FOO is turned off
I don't really like "force", it's IMO a bit too strong and too unspecific (although enable is here only a bit better). The first I'd rather call "visible", but I don't see a need for this and I wouldn't immediately know how to support this, a config entry can have multiple prompts and every prompt has its own dependencies, so which one should I enable? It would probably be easier to enable/force the dependencies so the prompt becomes visible.
But I'm open to suggestions for a better name, "select" might be a good alternative. Other ideas? Opinions?
bye, Roman
- 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/
| |