On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> This Config.in is executed _AFTER_ the config-option in question is
> asked, so $CONFIG_PARIDE_PARPORT is undefined at the moment of the
> question (making the dependency moot). Obviously, the dependency
> should be on CONFIG_PARPORT instead.
I don't think that's quite right. The idea of CONFIG_PARIDE_PARPORT was
to express the fact that if CONFIG_PARPORT=n, PARIDE has no dependency on
it (and so can be m or y), but otherwise it will depend on CONFIG_PARPORT.
I happen to think that this is icky, and I've _seen_ it lead to problems.
Would anyone object if, in 2.5, I remove PARIDE's 'do-it-yourself' code
and make it just PARPORT regardless? This would get rid of some fairly
sticky code in PARIDE as well.
Tim.
*/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:27 EST