From: John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: svn commit: r184193 - in head/sys: arm/conf conf Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:31:07 -0400
> On Friday 24 October 2008 09:27:03 am Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:26:43AM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > > > Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > We already have a better mechanism for including config files. We > > > > should be using that instead of poluting another port with the > > > > DEFAULTS file. > > > > > > Should we even have DEFAULTS files at all? IMHO they just confuse > > > matters by introducing "stealth" options into your config. > > > > I tend to second this. I always try to get everything possible out of > > my kernel to modules, and thus was surprised to see io.ko and mem.ko > > fail to load because they were silently included into my custom kernel. > > > > I understand that some things like 'device isa' and > > 'device npx' aren't really optional, but if something is useful to have, > > but can be loaded as a module, it belongs to GENERIC rather than > > DEFAULTS. Killing the latter altogether and throwing a comment that > > says particular option or device is mandatory in GENERIC is probably > > even better (and more transparent). > > The one thing I think DEFAULTS is useful for are replacing NO_FOO options > with > FOO options. That is, if someone wants to turn a feature on by default, I'd > rather them put 'options FOO' in DEFAULTS rather than rename all the > #ifdef's,e tc. to '#ifndef NO_FOO'. Wouldn't it be better to move to a system where we explicitly include std.i386 and have them all defined there? We already encourage stuff like this with advice to include GENERIC with nodev... Warner _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
