Masao Uebayashi writes:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:10 AM, matthew green <m...@eterna.com.au> wrote:
> > Masao Uebayashi writes:
> >> They were intentionally overly strict. Please put them back. Or
> >> change them to not overly strict.
> >
> > there's no good reason to change either makeoptions to to force all options
> > to be listed in the files files. like most of the items in config/TODO,
> > there is no rationale why these changes should be made. i removed these
> > two items because they are things people *want* to remain.
>
> I reread this sentence 5 times and found zero technical reasoning.
if you want to make a change it is up to you to show why it is
useful. instead, you make a claim about purity, and want to
remove features people use. please stop assuming that you know
every use-case and that everyone wants to be hampered by the tools
in this way.
the fact i use this feature *is* the reasoning.
> >> You make me wonder if I should add this to Makefile.kern.nc:
> >>
> >> ${SYSTEM_OBJ}: Makefile
> >
> > this is ridiculous.
>
> What happens if you change maxusers and rebuild your kernel?
i don't know off hand.
i don't see what it has to do with the ridiculous suggestion
above, which if implemented would mean we should just go rip
out all opt_*.h support, and anything else like it.
ie, sure, it might get "correct" builds, but the cost is that
every time i run config, everything is rebuilt. that's not a
sane suggestion.
.mrg.
