Re: 2.5 vi .config ; make oldconfig not working

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 08:42:29PM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote:
> > The following patch should make most garbage, such as =n, result in
> > # CONFIG_FOO is not set
> > without any user confirmation.
> 
> I don't think this is actually a good idea. We break forward compatibility with
> this (possibly, in future we will want to add something like "yes" or you don't
> know what..), and then you will still get "no" for no obvious reason - asking
> is much saner approach here, IMHO. If we didn't understand it, assuming 'no' is
> not a safe way, I believe.
What actually happens is that any non-recognized value is assumed to be 'n'.
So if 'yes' is recognised, then fine.

And with the simple parser used today "CONFIG_FOO=yes" would be recognised
as yes, because it checks only the 'y'.
I did not look that close on the patch you sent, but I think they
have the same functionality.

If this wasn't after feature freeze I would have liked to see the
hidden .config file to be replaced by for example Kconfigdata or
similar.
So many times I have seen people being asked to backup there
configuration, which is located in a hidden file.
If people should keep their fingers away from it - then we should note
that in the top of the file. As we do in the rest of the kernel.

And then we could have invented a better syntax, that was not
dictated by bash or similar.
Something to propose in the 2.7 timeframe.

	Sam