2.3.41 is dep_bool officially broken? :)

[Tigran Aivazian]

Hi Andrzej,

Your patch puts the stuff back (essentially) to how it used to be. Here is
the extract from the very original BFS patch of ages ago:

+if [ "$CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL" = "y" ]; then
+   tristate 'BFS filesystem (read only) support (EXPERIMENTAL)'
CONFIG_BFS_FS
+   if [ "$CONFIG_BFS_FS" != "n" ]; then
+      bool '  BFS filesystem write support (DANGEROUS)'
CONFIG_BFS_FS_WRITE
+   fi
+fi

So, since someone modified it to use dep_bool perhaps they had a reason to
do so? There is no point to change A -> B and then B -> A, I thought?

Regards.
------
Tigran A. Aivazian           | http://www.sco.com
Escalations Research Group   | tel: +44-(0)1923-813796
Santa Cruz Operation Ltd     | http://www.ocston.org/~tigran

On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Andrzej Krzysztofowicz wrote:
> No. It is (according to current standard) misuse of dep_bool.
> Look in my postings to l-k with subj: "2.3.41 config: suggested [PATCH]"


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo en vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/