Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 23:04:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 23:04:25 -0500 Received: from air-2.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:43497 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 23:04:24 -0500 Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 20:10:07 -0800 (PST) From: "Randy.Dunlap" X-X-Sender: To: "Robert P. J. Day" cc: Tomas Szepe , Linux kernel mailing list Subject: Re: observations on 2.5 config screens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1228 Lines: 32 On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Robert P. J. Day wrote: | On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote: | | > Greg Banks has (had) a real nice program for checking | > dependency ordering using Config.in files. It would be | > very nice if it now worked with Kconfig files. :) | > It could be used for this type of config reordering to | > verify that things weren't screwed up. I used it when | > I moved Network Devices to just under/after Network Options | > to show that no dependency ordering was mangled by that patch. | | so are you saying that there should be no backward dependencies | in the list of menus? i remember just that in the 2.4 screens, | when you could select hardware sensors and then, on a | subsequent screen, deselect I2C which would, as a result, | deselect sensors on that previous screen. | | you're saying that, the way these menus are ordered, this | type of thing should be avoided? Tomas Szepe just corrected me on this...no longer an issue. Thanks, -- ~Randy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/