On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, Greg Banks wrote:
| Peter Samuelson wrote:
| >
| > [Randy.Dunlap]
| > > Is there a script that checks for CONFIG_ variable dependency ordering
| > > in [Cc]onfig.in files? If so, where can I get it?
| >
| > http://www.alphalink.com.au/~gnb/gcml2/
|
Hi,
I'm getting the following error message.
How can I determine where the actual problem is?
Will Greg's gcml2 syntax checker find this?
(I'll find out tomorrow.)
Preparing scripts: functions,
parsing.scripts/Menuconfig:
./MCmenu73: line 71: syntax erro
Hi,
I see this in drivers/parport/Config.in (2.4.19) [not picking on
parport; this occurs in many places].
define_tristate CONFIG_PARPORT_PC_CML1 $CONFIG_PARPORT_PC
gcml2 (Greg Banks) checker program flags this with:
warning:drivers/parport/Config.in:18:symbol "CONFIG_PARPORT_PC_CML1
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Brendan J Simon wrote:
| Roman Zippel wrote:
|
| >>But the fact that xconfig depends on QT is going to make some people hate
| >>it.
| >>
| >>
| >This should be rather easily fixable, but it has to be done by someone who
| >is more familiar with whatever prefered toolkit. I'm
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Peter Samuelson wrote:
| [Roman Zippel]
| > The problem is that the config syntax will continue to evolve and
| > currently I prefer to keep the library close to the matching config
| > files.
| > I think I can keep the basic structure constant, but new options will be
| > add
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
| On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 12:28:44PM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
| >
| > The kernel would still have the text-mode configurator.
| The way I read the original post by Christoph Hellwig - nope.
| If the kernel config library is outside the kernel th
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
| On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
| >
| > stick with TCL/TK, like xconfig currently uses ?
|
| Too ugly. I actually think QT is a fine choice, I just suspect that it's
| going to cause political issues.
|
| My favourite approach b
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 02:18:48 +0200 Adrian Bunk wrote:
| On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 11:45:21PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
|
| > Hi,
|
| Hi Roman,
|
| > On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| >
| > > Roman, is it intentional that PCMCIA!=n is true if there's no PCMCIA
| > > option, or is it sim
