From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cpsmtpb-ews03.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.39.6]:49603 "EHLO cpsmtpb-ews03.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751558AbbAVKrg (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jan 2015 05:47:36 -0500 Message-ID: <1421923654.13638.56.camel@x220> Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] kconfig: menuconfig make "Selected by:" readable From: Paul Bolle Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:47:34 +0100 In-Reply-To: <54C0D1F3.6000001@suse.cz> References: <1421881250.13638.10.camel@x220> <54C05F33.6070703@infradead.org> <1421915745.13638.27.camel@x220> <54C0D1F3.6000001@suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Michal Marek Cc: Randy Dunlap , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 11:33 +0100, Michal Marek wrote: > On 2015-01-22 09:35, Paul Bolle wrote: > > In this case 64BIT is set to 'y' (otherwise LBDAF would have been 'y'). > > This isn't a bug issue, of course, but I still can see how this can be > > confusing. Perhaps the last line should read: > > Unmet dependency on: BLOCK [=y] && !64BIT [=y] > > > > Would that help? Or would > > Depends on: BLOCK [=y] && !64BIT [=n] > > > > (ie, print the value if "!64BIT") be clearer? > > How about > > Depends on: (BLOCK [=y] && !64BIT [=y]) [=n] > > ? Or Depends on: BLOCK [=y] && !64BIT [=y] => [=n] Whatever, we'll figure out something. This is a curses UI, isn't it? Could we use color to distinguish the symbols or sub-expressions that are set correctly, for that particular dependency, from those that are not? Paul Bolle