On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:49 AM, David Holland <dholland-sourcechan...@netbsd.org> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 09:27:06PM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote: > > So, while you expect that "options" works before it's defined, you > > also expect the order is honored for "no" use. I'm not sure how it > > can work internally. > > > > At this moment, "no" are evaluated when it's parsed. Those "no agp*" > > fallouts happened because agp is re-selected while resolving > > dependency after all parsing is done. IMO anything relying on order > > tends to be broken by design. For example: if BAR depends on FOO, "no > > options FOO" has to disable BAR too, because BAR can't be enabled > > without FOO. But when you re-enable FOO, BAR is not enabled. Is this > > really what you're expecting? > > I think it's important not to break the semantics of this.
Sure, but this makes me rather depressive.
