Re: RFC: kconfig select warnings bogus?

[Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>]

Trent Piepho wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> Basically you replace
>>
>> 	A... depends on B
>>
>> by
>>
>> 	B... serves A
>>
>> The latter variant is a pain to maintain.  Dependencies change over
>> time, therefore we should note the dependency always at the dependent
>> option, not at the serving option.
> 
> The problem is that "B" will not exist on some architectures.  If you put the
> dependency with "A", the dependency still exists when "B" is gone.  If the
> dependency is with "B", it nicely goes away when "B" is gone.

If "make whateverconfig" works correctly,...

>> Iterating upwards and downwards the dependency graph is the duty of
>> "make snafuconfig", not of the maintainers.

...multi-level dependencies are no problem for it.

There is nothing wrong with

	A... depends on B

	B... depends on C

	# CONFIG_C is not set

-> A is unavailable.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= =-=--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
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/