2.3.41 is dep_bool officially broken? :)

[Jeff Garzik]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> 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?

s/someone/me/

Something in the configure scripts definitely needs fixing, unless this
feature of dep_bool and dep_tristate is intentionally not supported.
(in which case I will revert my patch and correct the docs)

One more thing, does dep_tristate work but dep_bool fails?

Regards,

	Jeff





-
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/