Re: "menu" versus "menuconfig" -- they're *both* a bad idea

[Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>]

Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> but it should be obvious that, if you look at the Kconfig files, each
> and every "select" directive has the potential to override a decision
> you think you might have made elsewhere.

In other words, the author of a Kconfig file should not assume he knows
best how users want to configure kernels.

IMO Kconfig files should be nothing more than a list of the existing
options with statements how they depend on each other, plus the inline
help texts, plus one default logical grouping (e.g. Drivers -> SCSI ->
most of the SCSI drivers).  All the rest, i.e. supporting users to get
to the desired configuration, should be left to the various UIs to
Kconfig --- including the bidirectional tracking of dependencies,
presentation in different logical groups than the default one, etc.

However, the trend here seems to be to turn Kconfig into a _program_ (a
script rather than a description), and to tune that program to the needs
of a subgroup of Kconfig endusers.

> I'm just sayin'.

Me 2.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-- -==--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/