On 8 Apr 2003, Cedric Blancher wrote: > My 0.02¤ about this is that I personaly prefer a configuration script > that reflect reality, than something more "user convenient" that could > fool people about the way things work. Netfilter insides, as well as > kernel insides, are already complicated enough to me, for I do not need > stuff that could make me misunderstand something. Reality is that NAT > depends on conntrack. Your point would be to invert this for user's > sake, and this is, imho, a baaaaad thing ;) > > I don't know if any of them are reading this thread, but if we could > have some core developper's point of vue about his, would be great. > > It is a very tough subject to discuss how kernel configuration must be > presented. I wouldn't show nerd's behaviours, e.g. dumb users do not > compile kernel, but I tend to think that if someone wants to build its > own kernel, then it's up to him to (try to ?) understand how it is going > and what are the choices he's about to make. yes, i agree with this. i think i'll just ponder how to reorganize that menu to, first of all, have more informative help screens and, second, to add what i *think* we agree on is some missing dependencies. rday p.s. is the rest of this list also getting auto-vacation messages from respond-dgour? just wondering if it's coming from *this* list.
