On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Keith Owens wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 03:53:07 -0500,
> "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >But if we're going to push Linus and the kernel crew to switch to
> >CML2, then why invite the political tsuris of trying to get a large
> >patch into 2.4 now? Maybe I'm missing something here, but this doesn't
> >seem necessary to me.
>
> The derived config variables should be in a separate name space,
> whether config is CML1 or CML2. This patch does it for CML1.
I don't think this makes sense at all. The derivation of the config
values is the concern of the configuration system, not the code.
Consider something like CONFIG_CPU_HAS_FEATURE_FOO that might currently be
derived from CONFIG_CPU_BAR but may in the future be made independent. Or
vice-versa. Your proposed name-change means additional maintenance
headache and gets you nothing that you couldn't get by simply including
whatever script you wrote to deduce the dependencies. Such a script would
at least be able to tell you what a variable was derived from.
--
"Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."
-
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/
