Re: [PATCH] new kconfig goodies

Roman Zippel (zippel@linux-m68k.org)
Wed, 14 May 2003 21:51:56 +0200 (CEST)


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/