Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> but it should be obvious that, if you look at the Kconfig files, each
> and every "select" directive has the potential to override a decision
> you think you might have made elsewhere.
In other words, the author of a Kconfig file should not assume he knows
best how users
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Carlo Florendo wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > (in short, if i, the builder, explicitly choose *not* to add a
> > certain feature to my build, i think i have every right to expect that
> > some other part of my configuration isn't quietly going to put some
> >
Hi Carlo :)
* Carlo Florendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > (in short, if i, the builder, explicitly choose *not* to add a
> >certain feature to my build, i think i have every right to expect that
> >some other part of my configuration isn't quietly going to put
Hi Carlo :)
* Carlo Florendo [EMAIL PROTECTED] dixit:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
(in short, if i, the builder, explicitly choose *not* to add a
certain feature to my build, i think i have every right to expect that
some other part of my configuration isn't quietly going to put some
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Carlo Florendo wrote:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
(in short, if i, the builder, explicitly choose *not* to add a
certain feature to my build, i think i have every right to expect that
some other part of my configuration isn't quietly going to put some
sub-choice of
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
but it should be obvious that, if you look at the Kconfig files, each
and every select directive has the potential to override a decision
you think you might have made elsewhere.
In other words, the author of a Kconfig file should not assume he knows
best how users want
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
(in short, if i, the builder, explicitly choose *not* to add a
certain feature to my build, i think i have every right to expect that
some other part of my configuration isn't quietly going to put some
sub-choice of that feature back in behind my back.)
I agree with
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Apr 11 2007 05:47, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >> On Apr 11 2007 05:25, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >> >On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> >> On Apr 11 2007 03:58, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> A CONFIG_EMBEDDED bug. This should
On Apr 11 2007 05:47, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> On Apr 11 2007 05:25, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> >On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> >> On Apr 11 2007 03:58, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> >>
>> >> A CONFIG_EMBEDDED bug. This should perhaps be changed.
>> >> Or at best, deactivate the
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Apr 11 2007 05:25, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> On Apr 11 2007 03:58, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >>
> >> A CONFIG_EMBEDDED bug. This should perhaps be changed.
> >> Or at best, deactivate the ---> part
On Apr 11 2007 05:25, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Apr 11 2007 03:58, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>
>> A CONFIG_EMBEDDED bug. This should perhaps be changed.
>> Or at best, deactivate the ---> part when it's N.
>
> i'm not sure what you mean by "bug".
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Apr 11 2007 03:58, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> > General setup
> >[ ] Configure standard kernel features (for small systems) --->
> >
> >note how, even if you don't choose to configure features for small
> >systems, if you go under that
On Apr 11 2007 03:58, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> General setup
>[ ] Configure standard kernel features (for small systems) --->
>
>note how, even if you don't choose to configure features for small
>systems, if you go under that menu entry, you're still presented with
>a couple config
i can still remember the days when *i* was pushing for the idea of
using "menuconfig" instead of "menu" more in the config menus, but
i've finally realized they're *both* badly designed for what jan is
trying to do here.
the best example of why "menuconfig" is a mess is in the menu entry
i can still remember the days when *i* was pushing for the idea of
using menuconfig instead of menu more in the config menus, but
i've finally realized they're *both* badly designed for what jan is
trying to do here.
the best example of why menuconfig is a mess is in the menu entry
for:
On Apr 11 2007 03:58, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
General setup
[ ] Configure standard kernel features (for small systems) ---
note how, even if you don't choose to configure features for small
systems, if you go under that menu entry, you're still presented with
a couple config options
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Apr 11 2007 03:58, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
General setup
[ ] Configure standard kernel features (for small systems) ---
note how, even if you don't choose to configure features for small
systems, if you go under that menu entry,
On Apr 11 2007 05:25, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Apr 11 2007 03:58, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
A CONFIG_EMBEDDED bug. This should perhaps be changed.
Or at best, deactivate the --- part when it's N.
i'm not sure what you mean by bug. if what you
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Apr 11 2007 05:25, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Apr 11 2007 03:58, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
A CONFIG_EMBEDDED bug. This should perhaps be changed.
Or at best, deactivate the --- part when it's N.
On Apr 11 2007 05:47, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Apr 11 2007 05:25, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Apr 11 2007 03:58, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
A CONFIG_EMBEDDED bug. This should perhaps be changed.
Or at best, deactivate the --- part when it's N.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Apr 11 2007 05:47, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Apr 11 2007 05:25, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Apr 11 2007 03:58, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
A CONFIG_EMBEDDED bug. This should perhaps be changed.
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
(in short, if i, the builder, explicitly choose *not* to add a
certain feature to my build, i think i have every right to expect that
some other part of my configuration isn't quietly going to put some
sub-choice of that feature back in behind my back.)
I agree with
22 matches
Mail list logo
