On di, 2015-10-06 at 01:03 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 03:42:47PM +0200, Valentin Rothberg wrote: > > In contrast to a select, a symbol using a dependency is only > > visible to the user when its dependency are satisfied. I see it as a > > decision between being semantically correct (depends) and being easy to > > configure/user friendly (select). > > Good point, something easy to configure should however still likely only > be visible to the user if and only if it would not break existing user > config. If we are not ensuring that now its perhaps good to annotate that > as a desirable future feature. (This might be going off on a tangent a bit.) Perhaps the issue that people run into, and that Luis is trying to solve, here and in other threads, is that these two approaches currently are used at the same level. In other words, maybe the configuration requirements should only be described using dependency relations while a (new) tool should provide what now is provided, sort of, by selects. Isn't that how package managers work? The packages themselves state things like: "I need Foo", "I conflict with Bar". Package managers use that information to handle what people actually care about, like "Please install Baz", without requiring those people to do the busy work of figuring out the dependencies of all packages. So, would a future SAT solver for Kconfig use a two level approach too: given the set of dependencies of the various features (first level) try to figure out if and how the features a user picks can actually be enabled (second level)? Thanks, Paul Bolle -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
