Re: [PATCH] new kconfig goodies

[Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>]

Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> writes:

|> 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?

How about "override"?

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."