Hi Roman,
On 6/23/07, Roman Zippel <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > menuconfig is really a type of config symbol, rather than a type of menu.
>
> Well, I'd have to disagree here. A config symbol has code associated
> with it (at least _all_ config symbols in the kernel originally did, till
> when these "menuconfig" things got introduced, which is precisely
> what made them "special").
Only because it's currently used mostly like this, it doesn't add any
"special" meaning.
But this will always be true (not just currently):
1. Kconfig symbols will always have code associated with them.
That's the entire purpose of Kconfig, is it not?
2. "menuconfig" symbols, otoh, were _invented_ for another reason
entirely: presentation and user interface i.e. so that users are able
to disable entire menus (and all the options contained therein)
without having to enter into the menu first, and without having to
disable all options individually (which was the situation that existed
before the introduction of these menuconfig objects).
The fact that these menuconfig objects are similar to "config symbols"
is only because of the way they got implemented, and has nothing to
do with their original purpose or the problem they try to solve.
Satyam
-
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]
