Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 21:51:56 +0200 (CEST)
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
To: Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] new kconfig goodies
In-Reply-To: <20030513211749.GA340@gnu.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305142014500.5042-100000@serv>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305111838300.14274-100000@serv>
 <buou1bz7h9a.fsf@mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305131710280.5042-100000@serv>
 <20030513211749.GA340@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1229
Lines: 32

Hi,

On Tue, 13 May 2003, Miles Bader wrote:

> BTW, the name `enable' seems to be a misnomer -- `enable' implies that it
> forces the depends to be y, but not that it also forces the _value_.
> 
> Why not have two:
> 
>   enable FOO	- forces the `depends' value of FOO to y
> 		  but it will still prompt
>   force FOO	- forces both the `depends' and value of FOO to y
> 		  prompting for FOO is turned off

I don't really like "force", it's IMO a bit too strong and too unspecific 
(although enable is here only a bit better). The first I'd rather call 
"visible", but I don't see a need for this and I wouldn't immediately know 
how to support this, a config entry can have multiple prompts and every 
prompt has its own dependencies, so which one should I enable? It would 
probably be easier to enable/force the dependencies so the prompt becomes 
visible.

But I'm open to suggestions for a better name, "select" might be a good 
alternative. Other ideas? Opinions?

bye, Roman

-
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/