On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 09:27:02AM -0500, John Nielsen wrote: > On Thursday 03 November 2005 09:03 am, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:27:21PM +0000, Robert Watson wrote: > > > On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, dick hoogendijk wrote: > > > >Sure, but I think it's the *syntax* that matters here? options -> > > > >nooptions / i486_cpu -> no??? It's OK to leave GENERIC alone, but HOW > > > >are things switched off? > > > > > > It appears to be an ommission in the file format. I've e-mailed > > > Ruslan, who implemented nodevice and nooption, to suggest that he also > > > add nocpu. I wonder if there are other missed syntactic bits of note. > > > > I've committed a code that implements the "nocpu" directive, FWIW. > > How about "nomakeoptions"? Or is there already a way to do the equivalent? > Yes, "nomakeoption" exists since 2003, but I've just added the "nomakeoptions" alias for consistency.
Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer
pgpz7Lv8jh1xI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
