Re: [patch] MTD: fix DOC2000/2001/2001PLUS build error

[Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 14:21:41 -0800 (PST) Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >
> > Ten years ago, people used 'depends on' to fix the tools, so that then
> > you want to enable something like USB_STORAGE, it can automatically turn
> > SCSI on for you.
> > 
> > Isn't that what you wanted?
> 
> Try it. It's not what it does. 
> 
> If you have a 
> 
> 	depends on SCSI
> 
> and you did not say you wanted SCSI, you'll never even *see* the question.
> 
> It will *not* turn on SCSI automatically for you. Quite the reverse. It 
> will not even show you the option.
> 
> In contrast, it you do a
> 
> 	select SCSI
> 
> you'll see the question, and it will do exactly what you claim "depends 
> on" does. Which yes, is what we want.
> 
> So what's your problem? You argue as if you didn't understand the 
> difference between "depends on" and "select".

I think the problem is "who is make *config" for?".

David wants it to be for developers (ISTM) and "select" is a
hassle for us.

Linus wants it to be for (unadvanced) users, but they tend to just
use distro kernels and distro configs, according to David, and I
agree with that.

So I think that make *config is more for developers and advanced
(not embedded) users.

> As an example of this, look at SATA. It does "select SCSI" if you select 
> CONFIG_ATA, _exactly_ because it actually wants to turn on the SCSI layer 
> *regardless* of what the user said. Because if the user said "n" to SCSI, 
> the user simply didn't know that the SATA code uses the SCSI code.
> 
> Which is an example of what I've been saying all along: "select" makes 
> sense. USB_STORAGE should have done the same.
> 
> Claiming that "select" is evil is just totally strange.

It's a real problem for developers who actually try to modify
configs.

---
~Randy