Hi,
I'm revisiting this. Would that make sense to rename "gkc" and "qconf"
to respectively "gconfig" and "xconfig" ? There is copyright from
their respective author associated with each one, so that would have
to be updated also.
Thanks,
- Arnaud
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 11:51:11 -0400 Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> diff --git a/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c b/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c
>> index d669882..1636213 100644
>> --- a/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c
>> +++ b/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c
>> @@ -671,8 +671,7 @@ void on_introduction1_activate(GtkMenuItem * menuitem, gpointer user_data)
>> {
>> GtkWidget *dialog;
>> const gchar *intro_text = _(
>> - "Welcome to gkc, the GTK+ graphical kernel configuration tool\n"
>> - "for Linux.\n"
>> + "Welcome to gkc, the GTK+ graphical configuration tool\n"
>
> Should be "gconfig". It's never been called "gkc" AFAIK.
>
[...]
>> diff --git a/scripts/kconfig/qconf.cc b/scripts/kconfig/qconf.cc
>> index a04e451..fe18f7e 100644
>> --- a/scripts/kconfig/qconf.cc
>> +++ b/scripts/kconfig/qconf.cc
>> @@ -1655,7 +1655,7 @@ void ConfigMainWindow::closeEvent(QCloseEvent* e)
>>
>> void ConfigMainWindow::showIntro(void)
>> {
>> - static const QString str = _("Welcome to the qconf graphical kernel configuration tool for Linux.\n\n"
>> + static const QString str = _("Welcome to the qconf graphical configuration tool.\n\n"
>
> s/qconf/xconfig/
>
>> "For each option, a blank box indicates the feature is disabled, a check\n"
>> "indicates it is enabled, and a dot indicates that it is to be compiled\n"
>> "as a module. Clicking on the box will cycle through the three states.\n\n"
>> --
>
>
> ---
> ~Randy
> *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
>
--
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
