Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> but it should be obvious that, if you look at the Kconfig files, each
> and every "select" directive has the potential to override a decision
> you think you might have made elsewhere.
In other words, the author of a Kconfig file should not assume he knows
best how users want to configure kernels.
IMO Kconfig files should be nothing more than a list of the existing
options with statements how they depend on each other, plus the inline
help texts, plus one default logical grouping (e.g. Drivers -> SCSI ->
most of the SCSI drivers). All the rest, i.e. supporting users to get
to the desired configuration, should be left to the various UIs to
Kconfig --- including the bidirectional tracking of dependencies,
presentation in different logical groups than the default one, etc.
However, the trend here seems to be to turn Kconfig into a _program_ (a
script rather than a description), and to tune that program to the needs
of a subgroup of Kconfig endusers.
> I'm just sayin'.
Me 2.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-- -==--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
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]
