On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 12:35:31PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Tom Rini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Perhaps that wasn't quite the right words. Statement for Statement and
> > no additional restrictions on questions.
>
> Statement for statement is not going to happen, simply because the structure
> of the old and new languages is different.
Strictly stated implication for strictly stated implication?
> What invariant or behavior are you trying to preserve with "no additional
> restrictions"? Most of the additional restrictions are bus guards, so that
> (for example) users won't see EISA questions on a non-EISA system. Is this
> a bad thing?
Well, if there wasn't an EISA guard for CML1, there should't be for CML2
_yet_. Why? It's either an intentional feature (it's actually EISA and
some wierd bus from {arm,ppc,cris,other}) or it's a bug that should be
submitted seperately so someone can pop up and say it's wrong or not.
There's an underlying concern that if it's not a rather strict
translation of the current rules, there's bugs, and people don't want to
fix bugs that don't exist in the current system.
> > > You want the PPC_RTC thing fixed. I'll do that. What else do *you* need?
> >
> > Showing of CONFIG options that don't have a help text, regardless of
> > CONFIG_ADVANCED (or whichever was the guard for that before) if you
> > haven't changed that since the last time someone brought it up.
>
> I've commented out the declaration that sets this guard for 2.3.1.
Good. This should fix one of the real complaints about CML2 being
horrifyling different in questionable ways from CML1.
> --
> <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
_______________________________________________
kbuild-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
