Hi Carlo :)
* Carlo Florendo <[email protected]> dixit:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > (in short, if i, the builder, explicitly choose *not* to add a
> >certain feature to my build, i think i have every right to expect that
> >some other part of my configuration isn't quietly going to put some
> >sub-choice of that feature back in behind my back.)
>
> I agree with this. However, if another feature actually depends on another
> explicitly unselected feature, there should at least be a warning prompt
> that such is the case.
>
> It probably would be hard though to track all dependencies.
I think that it wouldn't be that hard: some cases (like
CONFIG_EMBEDDED) are easy to spot, and the harder ones are going to bite
someone's arse sooner or later. If a bad dependency tracking doesn't
cause any harm, it doesn't need to be fixed right now, and if it bites,
it can be fixed before the next -stable release sees the light.
Fortunately, all dependencies (at least all that can cause harm if
untracked) will be spotted before the next minor kernel release.
Hopefully...
Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado
--
Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net
It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to... RAmen!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
