Patch against -bk3.
--
Tomas Szepe <[email protected]>
diff -urN a/fs/Kconfig b/fs/Kconfig
--- a/fs/Kconfig 2003-06-14 23:07:12.000000000 +0200
+++ b/fs/Kconfig 2003-07-26 20:48:56.000000000 +0200
@@ -481,7 +481,11 @@
local network, you probably do not need an automounter, and can say
N here.
-menu "CD-ROM/DVD Filesystems"
+config CD_FS
+ bool "CD-ROM/DVD Filesystems"
+ default y
+
+if CD_FS
config ISO9660_FS
tristate "ISO 9660 CDROM file system support"
@@ -545,9 +549,13 @@
If unsure, say N.
-endmenu
+endif
+
+config MS_FS
+ bool "DOS/FAT/NT Filesystems"
+ default y
-menu "DOS/FAT/NT Filesystems"
+if MS_FS
config FAT_FS
tristate "DOS FAT fs support"
@@ -728,9 +736,13 @@
It is strongly recommended and perfectly safe to say N here.
-endmenu
+endif
+
+config PSEUDO_FS
+ bool "Pseudo filesystems"
+ default y
-menu "Pseudo filesystems"
+if PSEUDO_FS
config PROC_FS
bool "/proc file system support"
@@ -881,9 +893,13 @@
say M here and read <file:Documentation/modules.txt>. The module
will be called ramfs.
-endmenu
+endif
+
+config MISC_FS
+ bool "Miscellaneous filesystems"
+ default y
-menu "Miscellaneous filesystems"
+if MISC_FS
config ADFS_FS
tristate "ADFS file system support (EXPERIMENTAL)"
@@ -1261,10 +1277,14 @@
Say Y here if you want to try writing to UFS partitions. This is
experimental, so you should back up your UFS partitions beforehand.
-endmenu
+endif
-menu "Network File Systems"
+config NET_FS
+ bool "Network File Systems"
depends on NET
+ default y
+
+if NET_FS
config NFS_FS
tristate "NFS file system support"
@@ -1591,7 +1611,7 @@
default m if AFS_FS=m
default y if AFS_FS=y
-endmenu
+endif
menu "Partition Types"
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 21:55:44 +0200 Tomas Szepe <[email protected]> wrote:
| Patch against -bk3.
|
| --
Let me begin by saying that I find the menu arrangement (both before
and after this patch) highly subjective.
I.e., there's not necessarily a right or wrong. (RR:)
I.e., in the absence of further input, some maintainer can decide. :)
Given the above:
I prefer short menus. I find them more readable, with less clutter.
So I don't mind them the way that they currently are.
OTOH, I don't care strongly either way. I think that we should
care more about how non-developers use and see 'make *config'
than how kernel developers use and see it.
--
~Randy
| http://developer.osdl.org/rddunlap/ | http://www.xenotime.net/linux/ |
For Linux-2.6:
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/post-halloween-2.5.txt
or http://lwn.net/Articles/39901/
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/modules/
> [[email protected]]
>
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 21:55:44 +0200 Tomas Szepe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> | Patch against -bk3.
>
> Let me begin by saying that I find the menu arrangement (both before
> and after this patch) highly subjective.
I guess so.
> I.e., there's not necessarily a right or wrong. (RR:)
> I.e., in the absence of further input, some maintainer can decide. :)
>
> Given the above:
> I prefer short menus. I find them more readable, with less clutter.
> So I don't mind them the way that they currently are.
>
> OTOH, I don't care strongly either way. I think that we should
> care more about how non-developers use and see 'make *config'
> than how kernel developers use and see it.
I can't see why we need to categorize ~50 (that is _two_ 80x25 screenfuls)
filesystems into 7 or so submenus. The going back and forth in menuconfig
just to check if NFS and proc are enabled for a basic config is highly
annoying IMHO. The categorization itself is a nice idea, though.
--
Tomas Szepe <[email protected]>