Re: Disgusted with kbuild developers

[Gerd Knorr]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
>  Alan Cox wrote:
> > Since the information is there in CML1 to generate the list of constraints
> > for any given option, its a reasonable assertion that the entire CML2
> > language rewrite is self indulgence from a self confessed language invention
> > freak.
>  
>  Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are express two different types of
>  situations, and CML1 isn't sufficient to express the second:
>  
>  1) CONFIG_FOO_OPTION requires CONFIG_FOO
>  
>  2) CONFIG_SUBSYS2 requires CONFIG_SUBSYS1
>  
>  The reason why #2 is different, is the desired prompting and symbol
>  behavior for the end user.
>  
>  If CONFIG_SUBSYS1=m or "", and CONFIG_SUBSYS2=y or m, then we gotta
>  change the value of CONFIG_SUBSYS1 and options underneath
>  CONFIG_SUBSYS1.  Re-prompt for CONFIG_SUBSYS1, perhaps?

IMHO that is a issue with the current *tools*, not with the CML1
*language*.  The information about the dependences is there, a more
clever tool than "make config" can use them to present a better UI.

I have a 5-year-old perl script for kernel configuration, maybe
I should try to reactivate it and see ...

  Gerd

-- 
#define	ENOCLUE 125 /* userland programmer induced race condition */