Re: Disgusted with kbuild developers

[Jeff Garzik]

Alan Cox wrote:
> Since the information is there in CML1 to generate the list of constraints
> for any given option, its a reasonable assertion that the entire CML2
> language rewrite is self indulgence from a self confessed language invention
> freak.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are express two different types of
situations, and CML1 isn't sufficient to express the second:

1) CONFIG_FOO_OPTION requires CONFIG_FOO

2) CONFIG_SUBSYS2 requires CONFIG_SUBSYS1

The reason why #2 is different, is the desired prompting and symbol
behavior for the end user.

If CONFIG_SUBSYS1=m or "", and CONFIG_SUBSYS2=y or m, then we gotta
change the value of CONFIG_SUBSYS1 and options underneath
CONFIG_SUBSYS1.  Re-prompt for CONFIG_SUBSYS1, perhaps?
If CONFIG_SUBSYS1=y, value of CONFIG_SUBSYS2 isn't affected
If CONFIG_SUBSYS1="" and CONFIG_SUBSYS2="", then we gotta prompt for
CONFIG_SUBSYS1, but -after- CONFIG_SUBSYS2 is prompted for.

I was tempted to introduce a "requires" token to express dependencies
between subsystems, because I feel they are different from the other
dependencies present, 

	Jeff

-- 
Jeff Garzik      | "I went through my candy like hot oatmeal
Building 1024    |  through an internally-buttered weasel."
MandrakeSoft     |             - goats.com