Re: kconfig - a suggestion how to fix the select issue

[Matthias Schniedermeyer <ms@citd.de>]

On 04.05.2008 12:12, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-05-04 at 09:10 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > Today we have two ways to express/solve dependencies.
> > 
> > Top-down we have "depends on"
> > and bottom up we have "select".
> > 
> > The "depends on" dependencies at the same
> > time impact the visibility of a symbol.
> > A symbol with "depends on" not satisfied are not
> > visible and thus not shown in menuconfig.
> 
> Perhaps this is problem: The menu item shouldn't be selectable for sure
> but it may well be visible (and I'm purposely ignoring details of "how
> to grey out" for the different user interfaces).
> If it's visible (but not selectable) the user interface can provide the
> auto-generated requirements (derived from the "depends on" chains) as
> part of the "help" or where ever it seems useful. And the user at least
> knows where to look further.

I always wondered why there is no "grey out", at least optionaly.

My "favourite"(tm) example of a sub-marine is: Wireless drivers (mac80211).

The config-option to switch on the visibility of the mac80211 drivers 
("CONFIG_MAC80211") is conveniently located on the other side of the 
milky way.
(3 menus down, a sitestep and 2 up again. At least in menuconfig)







Bis denn

-- 
Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as 
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, 
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.