From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
To: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] new kconfig goodies
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 22:56:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <jellx9b62v.fsf@sykes.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305142014500.5042-100000@serv> (Roman Zippel's message of "Wed, 14 May 2003 21:51:56 +0200 (CEST)")
Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> writes:
|> Hi,
|>
|> On Tue, 13 May 2003, Miles Bader wrote:
|>
|> > BTW, the name `enable' seems to be a misnomer -- `enable' implies that it
|> > forces the depends to be y, but not that it also forces the _value_.
|> >
|> > Why not have two:
|> >
|> > enable FOO - forces the `depends' value of FOO to y
|> > but it will still prompt
|> > force FOO - forces both the `depends' and value of FOO to y
|> > prompting for FOO is turned off
|>
|> I don't really like "force", it's IMO a bit too strong and too unspecific
|> (although enable is here only a bit better). The first I'd rather call
|> "visible", but I don't see a need for this and I wouldn't immediately know
|> how to support this, a config entry can have multiple prompts and every
|> prompt has its own dependencies, so which one should I enable? It would
|> probably be easier to enable/force the dependencies so the prompt becomes
|> visible.
|>
|> But I'm open to suggestions for a better name, "select" might be a good
|> alternative. Other ideas? Opinions?
How about "override"?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-05-14 20:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-05-12 13:39 [PATCH] new kconfig goodies Roman Zippel
2003-05-12 14:16 ` Adrian Bunk
2003-05-12 15:37 ` Roman Zippel
2003-05-12 14:32 ` Dave Jones
2003-05-12 15:39 ` Roman Zippel
2003-05-12 16:08 ` Dave Jones
2003-05-12 16:00 ` Tomas Szepe
2003-05-12 22:36 ` Roman Zippel
2003-05-12 15:13 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2003-05-12 15:43 ` Roman Zippel
2003-05-13 1:38 ` Miles Bader
2003-05-13 1:44 ` Miles Bader
2003-05-13 15:27 ` Roman Zippel
2003-05-13 21:17 ` Miles Bader
2003-05-14 19:51 ` Roman Zippel
2003-05-14 20:56 ` Andreas Schwab [this message]
2003-05-14 22:11 ` Roman Zippel
2003-05-15 0:21 ` Michael Alan Dorman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=jellx9b62v.fsf@sykes.suse.de \
--to=schwab@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miles@gnu.org \
--cc=zippel@linux-m68k.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).