On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 23:10 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Paul Bolle wrote: > > And in your example BAR is bool, right? Does the above get more > > complicated if BAR would be tristate? > > If BAR=m then implying BAZ from FOO=y will force BAZ to y or n, > bypassing the restriction provided by BAR like "select" does. This is > somewhat questionable for "select" to do that, and the code emits a > warning when "select" bypasses a direct dependency set to n, but not > when set to m. For now "imply" simply tries to be consistent with > the "select" behavior. Side note: yes, one can select a symbol that's missing one or more dependencies. But since Kconfig has two separate methods to describe relations (ie, selecting and depending) there's logically the possibility of conflict. So we need a rule to resolve that conflict. That rule is: "select" beats "depends on". I don't think that this rule is less plausible than the opposite rule. Paul Bolle -- 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
