Re: Shouldn't kconfig defaults match recommendations in help text?

[Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Sam Ravnborg wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:33:09PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > 
> > Which brings me to another thing regarding configs and defaults - there 
> > does not seem to be much relation between the defaults in the various 
> > Kconfig files and the settings in arch/<foo>/defconfig which puzzles me, 
> > especially since "make defconfig" seems to use the stuff from 
> > arch/<foo>/defconfig and not what's specified in Kconfig...
> > Wouldn't it make sense to update the defconfig's to match the Kconfig's 
> > when I make these changes?
> 
> defconfig is only subject for changes by arch-maintainers.
> And defaults provided in Kconfig is mainly valid for i386 anyway -
> so are the Kconfig help text.
> 
Ok, thank you for enlightening me on that. So defaults are chosen first 
from defconfig, and then from Kconfig for options not present in 
defconfig.

I guess I should limit myself to i386 for this or maybe just abandon it 
alltogether. 
It still seems like a good idea though to make the defaults (at least on 
i386) match the help text recommendations, but if defconfig is used over 
Kconfig and defconfig is more or less off-limits, and changing Kconfig 
would result in wrong defaults on other archs (which would then cause more 
work for arch maintainers with updating their defconfig), then maybe it's 
really not such a good idea after all to go about changing this.

I'll stay away from making these changes for now unless I run across some 
really obvious and non-problematic cases.

--
Jesper Juhl