[Peter Samuelson]
!y == n
!m == n
!n == y
[Roman Zippel]
I would define !m as m, e.g. it would allow
dep_tristate CONFIG_OLD !$CONFIG_NEW
dep_tristate CONFIG_NEW !$CONFIG_OLD
You know, that never even occurred to me. Your scheme is not strictly
logical, but it is much more
G'day,
I like the basic idea here, and I'm pleased that someone has the courage to
tackle some of the brokenness of the kconfig language (if only because it
will provide me with a precedent when I try to submit some of my patches ;-).
I was a bit worried when I first saw the patch (after all,
Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Russell King]
Erm, !n == n ???
Duh. I need some serious sleep. That wasn't the only semantically
significant typo in my post, only the worst. Obviously, !n == y.
So what is ! ?
Greg.
--
the price of civilisation today is a courageous willingness to prevail,
Greg Banks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| --- 2.4.20pre1/scripts/Configure2001-07-02 15:56:40.0 -0500
| +++ 2.4.20pre1p/scripts/Configure 2002-08-08 22:31:49.0 -0500
| @@ -232,6 +241,28 @@
| }
|
| #
| +# dep_calc reduces a dependency line down to a single
[Greg Banks]
I like the basic idea here, and I'm pleased that someone has the
courage to tackle some of the brokenness of the kconfig language (if
only because it will provide me with a precedent when I try to
submit some of my patches ;-).
Thanks for the feedback. (:
This applies to
