On Saturday 15 September 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 11:44:59AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Stefan Richter wrote: > >> Adrian Bunk wrote: > >>> On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 04:11:45PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote: > >>>> Perfect is in the eye of the beholder. You would consequently have to > >>>> add such options into all menus which contain scsi low-level providers. > >>> Kconfig is a user interface, so perfect is what is best for the > >>> kconfig users. > >> Duplicate options with different names in different menus, but which all > >> do the same, --- is this the best for users? > > > > I recognize it's a rhetorical question :) The answer is of course "no". > > > > I hope the other participants of this thread register the severe > > disinclination of the maintainers to change this stuff, as this is a > > classic case of making a mountain out of a molehill[1]. > > > > For the -vast majority- of people configuring the kernel, this is not a > > problem. Kernel people are -expected- to know what they're doing, > > I doubt your claim is true since the vast majority of kconfig users > are most likely not kernel developers. Yes, we shouldn't be needlessly raising the bar for power users. > @Greg: > Do you have any numbers regarding how your "Linux Kernel in a Nutshell" > is selling? > Even download numbers? > > > especially when switching from one major subsystem to another. > > It's not only about switching, the same problems awaits people when > configuring a kernel for their hardware the first time. *nods* > > Therefore, all this is IMO wasted effort and hot air. There are far more > > important issues to deal with. > > Why don't we dump kconfig and write the .config by hand? ;-) > > More seriously: > Yes, there are many other important issues in the kernel. > But not fixing kconfig UI problems doesn't fix these issues faster. Agreed, and actually not fixing Kconfig UI problems will make the other issues being fixed *slower* (because they result in *increased* workload on developers' side). > I have seen people running into problems because some required > option wasn't set - in the simplest cases things like IDE without DMA > because a help text wasn't updated when more hardware support was added > to a driver. This is why nowadays IDE DMA support is automatically selected by IDE host drivers that need it - a big relief for everybody. > You might not care about the kconfig users. > But other people do. ...and even if their attempts/solutions may not be proper yet they should not be discouraged to work on these problems... Thanks, Bart - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
