Re: linux-kernel-digest V1 #3100

Andi Kleen (ak@muc.de)
05 Jan 1999 02:31:01 +0100


In article <199901050105.TAA23973@duracef.shout.net>,
Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net> writes:
> Hi Andi,
>> Why is it incoherent? If the user did not choose some feature, but it
>> is turned on anyways because of some dependency noone is hurt. I can
>> see no negative effects.

> I get negative effects of the configuration system every day in my
> mailbox and I'm trying to clean them up.

> One problem is that when CONFIG_IP_ADVANCED_ROUTER is turned on,
> CONFIG_NETLINK_DEV is left in an uninitialized state.

Couldn't this be solved by supplying a default value for CONFIG_NETLINK_DEV (off -
it is only a rather obscure backward compatibility option) ?

> Another problem is that if the user tries to turn off CONFIG_RTNETLINK
> in Menuconfig or xconfig, it stays off for one round of refreshing,
> and then comes back on. You can see the same effect in Configure by
> simply running Configure again.

Bad.

Would it be possible to give error messages for missing choices?

if CONFIG_IP_ADVANCED_ROUTER = y -a CONFIG_RTNETLINK != y ; then
error "Sorry, advanced router needs rtnetlink. Enable it and try again."
fi

I am no expert on the Configure system, but how hard would it be to implement
such a thing in config/menuconfig/xconfig ?

> After 2.2, I am writing an alternative for the whole nasty mess in the
> scripts/ directory, with a written language description and a static
> parser that enforces it. For 2.2, I am fixing as much as I can.
> CONFIG_RTNETLINK is one of the problems. One way or another, I am
> writing and submitting a patch for it.

I can understand your problems, but I think making ADVANCED_ROUTER depend
on RTNETLINK would be a mistake (because it is merely an implementation detail)

-Andi

-
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/