From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4770953836609296824==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Sergey Senozhatsky Subject: Re: [Powertop] [PATCH] do not implement get_user_input() in DISABLE_NCURSES builds Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:49:17 +0300 Message-ID: <20120820094917.GB3137@swordfish> In-Reply-To: 50318786.20701@linux.intel.com To: powertop@lists.01.org List-ID: --===============4770953836609296824== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On (08/19/12 17:40), Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On 8/19/2012 2:57 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > do not implement get_user_input() in DISABLE_NCURSES builds > = > no offence.. but this ifdef madness needs to stop. > = > right now, powertop uses ncurses. > = > either we want to make it optional, but then this stuff needs to get a lo= t more modular, > or we just declare that you need ncurses. > I'm very much leaning towards the later fwiw... > = I agree, and actually I don't like this patch (ifdef stuff also affects pat= ches I'm currently working on). it's rather hard to tell how many people will be affected by #= 2 decision, but we can tell the number for #1 case. = DISABLE_NCURSES is not that nasty in overall, since it just disables some a= pplication features, comparing to, for example, DISABLE_TRYCATCH, which disables standard langua= ge features for very much non-obvious reason for someone with no embedded background. that said, it'll be nice if we forbid DISABLE_NCURSES, but we'll still have= ifdefs in code because of decisions different people made (like no ncurses in some di= stros or incomplete/buggy programming language support). -ss --===============4770953836609296824==--