1 |
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 3:34 PM Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> Rich Freeman wrote: |
4 |
> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 1:02 PM Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
> >> Rich Freeman wrote: |
6 |
> >>> Suppose you have an Acme model 1234 network card. You've previously |
7 |
> >>> answered Yes to enabling its driver, and No to enabling the Acme model |
8 |
> >>> 2345 card. |
9 |
> >>> |
10 |
> >>> Now a new option comes along to show/hide all the Acme cards. That is |
11 |
> >>> a new option, so it has no existing value as far as the config |
12 |
> >>> database design goes. If you answer No, then you disable your model |
13 |
> >>> 1234 card (without even being asked, because that isn't a new option). |
14 |
> >>> If you answer yes then effectively your previous choices remain in |
15 |
> >>> effect (model 1234 remains enabled, and model 2345 remains disabled). |
16 |
> >>> |
17 |
> >> One would think it should ask if you want any ACME drivers first. If |
18 |
> >> you say yes then ask which ones you want. If you answer no then disable |
19 |
> >> them all and move to the Better-than-nothing drivers next in the list, |
20 |
> >> assuming the are alphabetical. |
21 |
> > This is exactly what it is doing. There is a new question about |
22 |
> > whether you want any ACME drivers. It defaults to Yes. If you answer |
23 |
> > Yes then it prompts you for each individual driver, though it will |
24 |
> > skip those prompts since you've already answered them. |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> > If you answer No then it will set all the individual drivers to No |
27 |
> > (including the ones you previously set to Yes), and not prompt you |
28 |
> > further. |
29 |
> > |
30 |
> >> Once you get past that driver, nothing |
31 |
> >> else should disable the drivers you wanted. |
32 |
> > But the drivers you wanted WERE Acme drivers, so if you answered No to |
33 |
> > that question why would it prompt for those? |
34 |
> > |
35 |
> |
36 |
> The point I was making is once set to yes, then questions after that |
37 |
> should not go back and disable what you said yes too. If a person goes |
38 |
> to the trouble of saying yes, then nothing after that should reverse |
39 |
> that option back to no. From what I understand, if it asks a question |
40 |
> later on and you say no, it reverses a previous yes even if you want |
41 |
> that first one included. |
42 |
|
43 |
The new question comes before the old question in sequence. |
44 |
|
45 |
Before the questions were: |
46 |
|
47 |
1. Do you want to install the Acme 1234 driver? |
48 |
2. Do you want to install the Acme 2345 driver? |
49 |
|
50 |
After the upgrade the questions are: |
51 |
|
52 |
0. Do you want to install any Acme drivers? |
53 |
1. Do you want to install the Acme 1234 driver? |
54 |
2. Do you want to install the Acme 2345 driver? |
55 |
|
56 |
So, if you answer question 0 with a no, then it sets 1/2 to a no as |
57 |
well. These questions come AFTER question 0, even if you had already |
58 |
answered them in an earlier kernel version that was missing question |
59 |
0. |
60 |
|
61 |
Again, I'm not saying it is ideal. However, this is why question 0 |
62 |
defaults to yes. If you accidentally answer Yes for question 0 when |
63 |
you intended no, the only effect is asking questions 1/2, which won't |
64 |
actually get asked since you had previously answered them anyway. |
65 |
Question 0 doesn't actually change the kernel build - it just controls |
66 |
whether questions 1/2 get asked, and if you answer it no then it sets |
67 |
1/2 to no as well. It is a design compromise so that they didn't have |
68 |
to rethink the entire kernel config design. |
69 |
|
70 |
-- |
71 |
Rich |