> I tend to agree here. When Holger sent these patches recently I was very > pleased that he has put some love into the Kconfig files. Bit indeed it > is very hard (and unnecessary) work to keep them in sync. Holger, what's > your take on this? Is our new (and yet-to-be-uploaded-to-the-net) > Documentation prominent enough to drop the usage from Kconfig? In the long run, I'd like to put a help on all Kconfig entries. When I was new to Barebox, and started "make xconfig" and was partially pleased (because make xconfig worked), but also puzzled, because so many Kconfig entries did not contain any help text. It was not easy for me to decide if I need an option or not, or if that option would just be a nice-to-have one. >From that point of view I like the helps on the commands. They give you all the info you need to immediately knoy if you want to put a check there --- or not. However, Kconfig files are relatively easy to parse (or to write). So we could declare one option as the "main" source and write a python program that reads the main source and generates the others out of it. It's probably me who should write that ... grin. _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
