> >>>>> "David" == David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> writes:
>
> David> On 28 Sep 1999, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >> Now the questions is really why nobody fixes menuconfig
> >> instead. It seems that for every little irrelevant change either
> >> menuconfig or xconfig breaks for whatever stupid thing. If the
> >> situation is not improved we really should remove them from the
> >> kernel tree, they seem to cause more grief than good.
>
> David> The principle shit in - shit out quite reasonably applies to
> David> both, eventhough there are quite a lot of nasty bugs in xconfig
> David> (or at least missing features)...
>
> David> It's better to fix the Config.in files than to blame
> David> menuconfig/xconfig each time... After all, we don't blame make
> David> if there are errors in the Makefile's.
>
> So we hack Config.in because menuconfig is broken, that really sounds
> like a stupid solution to me.
>
> Having the following in Config.in is _not broken:
>
> if [ "$ARCH" = "ppc"]
> bool "foo" CONFIG_SOME_RANDOM_THING
> fi
> if [ "$ARCH" = "mips"]
> bool "bar" CONFIG_SOME_RANDOM_THING
> fi
>
> Is _not_ broken as long as the condition cannot invoke the question
> twice. This is just one example of brokenness in the menu based config
> programs.
As long as you add the proper ';then' to those if's, it works ok with
menuconfig too, if I'm not all wrong... It's just xconfig that doesn't
work.
/David Weinehall
_ _
// David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
-
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/