Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753160AbbDFJu1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Apr 2015 05:50:27 -0400 Received: from lb3-smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net ([194.109.24.31]:57149 "EHLO lb3-smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752654AbbDFJu0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Apr 2015 05:50:26 -0400 Message-ID: <1428313821.634.116.camel@x220> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] break kconfig dependency loop From: Paul Bolle To: Jani Nikula Cc: Gerd Hoffmann , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, Mauro Carvalho Chehab , mst@redhat.com, open list , airlied@redhat.com, "open list:MEDIA INPUT INFRA..." Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 11:50:21 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87wq1wot9b.fsf@intel.com> References: <1427894130-14228-1-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> <1427894130-14228-2-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> <87wq1wot9b.fsf@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 (3.10.4-4.fc20) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1553 Lines: 36 On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 16:47 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > I think part of the problem is that "select" is often used not as > documented [1] but rather as "show my config in menuconfig for > convenience even if my dependency is not met, and select the dependency > even though I know it can screw up the dependency chain". Perhaps people use select because it offers, given the problem they face, a reasonable way to make the kconfig tools generate a sensible .config. It helps them to spend less time fiddling with Kconfig files. And they expect that it helps others to configure their build more easily, as it might save those others some work. > In the big picture, it feels like menuconfig needs a way to display > items whose dependencies are not met, and a way to recursively enable > said items and all their dependencies when told. How could that work its way through (multiple levels of) things like: depends on FOO || (BAZ && BAR) > This would reduce the > resistance to sticking with "select" when clearly "depends" is what's > meant. I had drafted a rather verbose response to this. But I think I'm not really sure what you're saying here, probably because "select" and "depends on" are rather different. How would you know that the actual intention was to use "depends on"? Paul Bolle -- 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/