On Wednesday 13 January 2010 1:48:38 pm Doug Barton wrote: > To address the other responses, Tom, sorry, your suggested text doesn't > address my concern. John, I don't think that users would somehow > magically know to look in NOTES for more information about an option > that is already in GENERIC.
You really think users do not already know to look in manpages or NOTES to find out more details about kernel options? Why bother having those documents if our users aren't going to look at them? Seriously, have you actually looked at GENERIC and NOTES and compared their contents. There are _many_ options and devices in GENERIC that have expanded descriptions in NOTES. This is the norm for documenting kernel options and has been for well over a decade. > In the interests of bringing this to a close: > # Store the plain version of the configuration file in the kernel itself. > # For information on extraction, and storing the comments also, see > config(8). > > There are plenty of comments in GENERIC that are longer/more substantial > than that, and let's be serious for a minute, IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYWAY. > I'm sorry if adding a comment that is slightly larger than usual to a > kernel config file defiles someone's view of the purity of all things > kernel, but let's try to take a step back and realize that NOT making > things so cryptic might actually benefit the users. So why not add a 3-line comment to GENERIC for every other kernel option? Put another way, what makes 'INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE' sufficiently special that it deserves special treatment relative to other kernel options? -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
