Sam,
> > Given:
> > - CONFIG_A=y
> > - CONFIG_B=n
> > - CONFIG_D=y
> > - CONFIG_E=n
> >
> > Will C be visible?
> The above has a syntax error. A 'depends on' cannot have an
> if caluse.
would you please write logic rules with more neutral language, like
(A || B) && C
or similar. Depencies (forward or backward) can be described as
SYM_FOO <- { # depencies/value
($SYM_DEP1 || !$SYM_DEP2) && $SYM_DEP3=xx
# implicit or
$SYM_DEP4 || $SYM_DEP5
} -> { # selects
SYM_2SELECT1 = $SYM_BAR ? foo_bar : bar_for
SYM_2SELECT2 = bar; SYM_BA; SYM_ZZ
# SYM_BA && SYM_ZZ will have value of SYM_FOO
}
or something.
> And I did not get your point either.
I try to design TUI now for better multidimensional walking/selecting on
the web of symbols and decencies, and i don't get those kconfig
constructs.
> Are you trying to say that we cannot improve kconfig to better
> express the dependencies or what is your point?
>
> Puzzeled...
Thanks.
____
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
