On Jun 23 2007 02:26, Roman Zippel wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
>> But why? Let it do just one thing, and do it well. Is their
>> any requirement anywhere that requires us to give a dual
>> meaning to these menuconfig objects -- i.e. to also control
>> the inclusion / exclusion of code from the kernel as well as
>> also for the presentation + user interface purpose that it
>> currently serves?
>
>This getting ridiculous. :-(
>You're the one who is attaching a new meaning to it.
>Any config symbol has multiple meanings depending on the context, the menu
>property only changes _one_ of them, you want to drastically redefine it
>and that's not going to happen.
Would it make sense to define a new entity called "configmenu" (or something
else) that is equivalent to menuconfig with the following changes?
* it creates a CM_ variable instead of a CONFIG_ one
* the CM_ symbols are not available to Makefiles or C files
(so in fact, just to menuconfig and that they are listed in .config)
Jan
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
