* Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:12:51 -0600 > On Thursday 27 September 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: >> On Saturday 29 September 2007 00:34, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: >> > > > God I hate select. >> > > >> > > IMO a better implementation would result in a notification / > confirmation >> > > of turning on new items, and the ability to deselect options which will >> > > also confirm to deselect dependants. Like most other systems that have >> > > similar problem to solve. >> > >> > Actually, the *really* nice thing to do would be to just add the reason >> > something got enabled into the ".config" file.  >> > CONFIG_ACPI=y # selected by X86_64_ACPI_NUMA >> > CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS=y # user choice >> > ...  >> Sure, that would probably be pretty trivial to implement too, and >> would solve most problems for kernel devs. >> >> At a level up from that, I think ease of use could be improved with >> a package manager-type chained-selection/deselection feature in >> the config tools. >> >> Not that I'm volunteering to implement either ;) >> >> > >> > That way, there's always a fairly straightforward way to see why some >> > configuration is the way it is (and the .config file is not only useful >> > for "make oldconfig", it's also what normally gets passed around for bug >> > reports, and is part of distro kernel packages etc, so it would seem to be >> > the right place, no?) >> > >> > Linus  > Adding the comments to the .config files sounds like a good project for a > comparative newbie. By the end of next week I should have hardware available > for experimental kernel builds. (And also some free wetware cycles.) > > Are there any other requirements for formatting I should consider?
No. Not another semi-newbie and/or semi-halfway done job, please. I'm pretty sure, that Linus is proposing that only after manual editing of/looking into the `.config' after `make oldconfig`. Before you will consider anything, please, check recent LKML (kbuild rewrite) and kbuild-devel(years 2001-2002) archives (assuming, you have experience with any build/conf things). Today's kconfig was proposed and accepted in a very unpleasant circumstances, has very poor design, development and no working alternative (for 5+ years now). The basics, i'm trying to put into design of the new kconfig, as part of my kbuild (already described a bit)/kconfig rewrite are: * flexible configuration development(kdevs) and process(kusers) + shell-like (not like CML1, which is just shell) scripting, allowing to extend easily (if there is no one available) capabilities, config values or actions for particular sub-system or compilation unit,  if somebody would like to see *a* shell-like scripting: ftp://flower.upol.cz/geloiwa/src/usr/local/etc/geloiwa/iwant + duplex travelling, multi- looking at/changing of config items, + flexible, yet built-able, connections in dependency chain (tree, graph, whatever); * resulting config file capable of producing exact config results of the build on any other setup (e.g. no ARCH=, CROSS_*, *_FLAGS *kbuild* things); * checking tool for particular config patterns (for bug reports) * system itself must be done with minimum requirements for C libraries (no ncurses) and tools (no `perl`, no `python`, no `make`). > In a case where option A is specified by option B which is specified by > option > C which is specified by option D, should the comment on A mention B, or D or > all three items in the chain? Fsck it. All must be done by a machine with maximum comfort of users (not particularly humans), even for those, who like to edit config like so: `sed -i 's/SYSFS=y/SYSFS="please, NO!!!"/' .config` -- -o--=O`C #oo'L O <___=E M ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ kbuild-devel mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel