From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Satyam Sharma" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] WAN Kconfig: change "depends on HDLC" to "select" Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 04:09:41 +0530 Message-ID: References: <463F27CE.2040008@garzik.org> <463F8CB4.3040603@garzik.org> <20070507135052.cc7e74ca.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Jeff Garzik" , "Roman Zippel" , "Krzysztof Halasa" , "Russell King" , lkml , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk To: "Randy Dunlap" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070507135052.cc7e74ca.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 5/8/07, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On Mon, 07 May 2007 16:31:48 -0400 Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > Satyam Sharma wrote: > > > Yes, mixing select and depends is a recipe for build disasters. Call > > > me a rabid fanatic, but I would in fact go as far as to say that this > > > whole "select" thing in the Kconfig process is one big BUG, and not a > > > feature. People are lazy by nature and would rather just "select" a > > > dependency for their config option than burden users with several > > > "depends". > > > > Tough, the kernel community has voted against you. > > Andrew (usually) implores people not to use "select" and I agree > with him. > > > It makes far more sense to include a driver during kernel configuration, > > and have that driver pull in its libraries via 'select'. The lame > > alternative requires developers to know which libraries they need BEFORE > > picking their drivers, which is backwards and requires legwork on the > > part of the kernel developer. > > Developers? If you had said "users," I might agree, but IMO it's > OK (or even Good) for developers to know what libraries their code > uses/requires. Yes, that's a good thing. You're absolutely right, but to give Jeff the benefit of the doubt I'm sure he _meant_ "users" there although he said "developers". Stating the obvious, the developer _has_ to know what stuff his code uses anyway, otherwise what does he "select"s or "depends" his config option on. As for users, we _can_ avoid pitfalls by building a complete dependency tree and just selecting _everything_ that we require for a particular config option to be selected, but some users could conceivably prefer only being _told_ about what else they need to successfully pick a config option (than everything just getting in behind their backs). Actually (correct me if I'm wrong), this is not presently possible: an option is not visible unless dependencies are already picked. Just a suggestion, though.