From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:45103 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750811AbbAVKvP (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jan 2015 05:51:15 -0500 Message-ID: <54C0D622.7080801@suse.cz> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:51:14 +0100 From: Michal Marek MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] kconfig: menuconfig make "Selected by:" readable References: <1421881250.13638.10.camel@x220> <54C05F33.6070703@infradead.org> <1421915745.13638.27.camel@x220> <54C0D1F3.6000001@suse.cz> <1421923654.13638.56.camel@x220> In-Reply-To: <1421923654.13638.56.camel@x220> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Paul Bolle Cc: Randy Dunlap , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org On 2015-01-22 11:47, Paul Bolle wrote: > 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? That might be a bit tricky, since there are multiple UIs and we use the same functions to build the displayed strings. Michal