Re: [patch] MTD: fix DOC2000/2001/2001PLUS build error

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 11:04:31AM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>   
>>> There's no reason we shouldn't be able to do exactly that with config
>>> symbols in Kconfig-land. The only difference is that we've got
>>> slightly different semantics for our "depend" keyword. Things which
>>> don't have their "depend" requirements met aren't offered as options.
>>> Whereas "select" is "automatically pull in dependencies"
>>> apt/yum-style.
>>>       
>> Perhaps this is because there is a lacking keyword. The depends controls 
>> visibility, perhaps a "requires" could be used to provide advisory 
>> information which mean "these other things will be turned on if you 
>> build this feature."
>>     
>
> "require" is a bad name as it's a synonym of "depend".
>
>   
>>> While we're at it, it would also be nice to be able to do:
>>>
>>> $ kconfig enable ACPI
>>> CONFIG_ACPI conflicts with CONFIG_APM
>>> $ kconfig enable -F ACPI
>>> disabling CONFIG_APM
>>> $ kconfig disable SCSI
>>> CONFIG_USB_STORAGE depends on CONFIG_SCSI
>>> $ kconfig disable -f SCSI
>>> disabling USB_STORAGE
>>> $ make
>>>
>>>       
>> I think depends and select provide this now, the postulated "requires" 
>> might make building the trees easier.
>>     
>
> The above is all about having a scriptable command line interface so
> that people don't need the broken sed + make oldconfig thing.
>
>   
I didn't say that clearly, I meant that the information to do this was 
present, not the functionality.

Someone suggested that 'requires' was a synonym of 'depends on' and was 
a bad choice. I think the requirement is in fasct the same, what I was 
after was not to prevent visibility of the option as 'depends' does. And 
we still probably need depends to avoid way too many choices.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO TMR Associates, Inc
  Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979