Re: [PATCH 2/5] USB Kconfig: Select SCSI for USB Mass Storage support

From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>, Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>,
	linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] USB Kconfig: Select SCSI for USB Mass Storage support
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 13:59:41 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080106115941.GB2082@does.not.exist> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4780BBAA.7020908@s5r6.in-berlin.de>

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 12:29:46PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:35:21AM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> >> instead work on better UIs if you have got
> >> trouble with the complexities of the dependencies graph.  The graphic
> >> UIs including menuconfig currently work best for tree-like dependencies,
> >> but the graph isn't a tree.  Think about how to present this properly in
> >> an UI.  The Kconfig files are the wrong place to attack this problem.
> >> ...
> > 
> > Duplicating the structure in each UI should be an improvement?
> > 
> > Hardly.
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> We have dependency data in the Kconfig files.  We have a few different
> UIs to them.  Why there are different UIs is easy (oldconfig vs.
> xconfig) or not so easy (gconfig vs. xconfig) to explain.  Anyway; IMO
> we should keep data and presentation separate for at least two reasons:
>   - to allow us to have specialized task-oriented UIs (oldconfig,
>     randconfig et cetera)
>   - because different people have different approaches to kernel
>     configuration (the guy who sets up a new box vs. the guy who bought
>     a new gadget vs. the guy who updates his kernel vs. the control
>     freak vs. the kernel tester vs...)
>...

You said:
"The graphic UIs including menuconfig currently work best for tree-like 
 dependencies"

That's true.

And the dependency graph can't be a tree.

Currently, defining the ordered tree the UIs present to the user is done 
_once_ in kconfig.

Our UIs either show this tree as a tree or go through the tree 
depth-first and present the options in this order to the user.

And I think your main misunderstanding is that you think the 
dependencies alone would carry enough information for allowing an UI to 
present the options in a way not worse than it's currently done - that's 
simply not true.

> Stefan Richter

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed