Talk:menuconfig

Dependency resolving

Isn't the dependency resolving also a "pro" of menuconfig? 137.122.32.16 (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

maybe - but it uses the same underlying data as the simple questionnaire. menuconfig's main advantage over that is that you can change your mind repeatedly before writing the updated .config file Tedickey (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

History

menuconfig was forked from dialog around 1996. Does anyone have precise date for that? Tedickey (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia material?

Is this article really an encyclopedia material? It's just one of ways to configure linux kernel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.248 (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it's not; the article is more like a tutorial/guide for menuconfig. -- intgr [talk] 18:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just coming here to ask about that, too. I really don't think that this belongs on Wikipedia. (and neither does Xconfig, by extension.) --86.138.100.145 (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoops - that reply was me not logged in. --TheSophera (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I must say that I agree completely. PERHAPS a more general and better written article on Linux configuration that includes a brief outline of menuconfig and xconfig would be of use. --AndyPreston —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC).

Yeah, it's been like that for 15 years now, finally gotten around to just… removing that part. The "advantages over previous…" is also not really encyclopedic, and also badly mixing usage information, architectural information, and proclaimed advantages (`xconfig` not being light load????). If someone feels brave enough, I'd recommend we remove that as well. MüllerMarcus (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I removed majority of the "Advantages" section and merged it with "Overview". I generally feel like this article is too specific, and it would instead make more sense to make a general "make config" or "Kconfig" article. Milenakos (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

kconfig instead of menuconfig?

Maybe it would make more sense to redirect to kconfig than for menuconfig (a specific feature of kconfig). kconfig is also used by a number of other projects such as buildroot, uboot, busybox, toybox, uclinux, uclibc, uclibc-ng. As you can see, if you have any familiarity with the projects, they are mostly used in the embedded space and are very prevelant there. So it's not quite as Linux kernel specific as the article suggests. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and how could I forget that coreboot also uses kconfig. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree! We should rename the article from "menuconfig" to "kconfig".

@Explicit agree? DungeonLords (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's see if we can get some consensus on this. It would really help to either make or break this article. If the focus changes to Kconfig, that would definitely be more notable than just one of the many config options; perhaps a section of a Kconfig article could mention the existing Linux source configuration tools that use it - menuconfig, qconfig, etc. EDIT: I just made some edits to the lede and other areas to trim the fat quite a bit, plus clear up some confusing (and factually incorrect in some cases) areas. I removed a few chunks in preparation for a potential move and refocus to Kconfig. I suggest copying the article as is to a sandbox area, then doing a major overhaul to change the focus to Kconfig; running a short candidate for rename discussion, and then after the renaming, replace the page with the updated content from the sandbox. This sandbox could be in any user's sandbox space (feel free to use mine, for example User:MrAureliusR/sandbox/Kconfig). MrAureliusR_{Yell at me!} 20:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)