Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 15:13:07 +0100 From: se@zpr.uni-koeln.de (Stefan Esser) To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New kernel option proposed.. Message-ID: <199603081413.AA10961@Sisyphos> In-Reply-To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> "Re: New kernel option proposed.." (Mar 7, 23:22)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 7, 23:22, "Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote: } Subject: Re: New kernel option proposed.. } > Hmmm.. seems more obvious, but then won't that kind of mean that we } > can't say RTFM? After all, the standard 4.4bsd manuals, Unix System } > Administrator Handbook, etc.. all refer to GENERIC in their kernel } > configuration sections. } } I'm not proposing to remove the generic kernel, simply the magic } meaning of the keyword "GENERIC" in our kernel sources. What if you } wanted to compile a non-GENERIC kernel with safety belts still intact? Hmmm, but the idea isn't bad at all ... Why not put an options GENERIC line into the BOOTMFS and GENERIC kernel config files. This way all the earlier dependencies on the GENERIC kernel name will still work. The removal of the automatic definition of the kernel's name as a preprocesser symbol was good. But why not add the definition of GENERIC, since it serves a purpose, is explicit in the config file and a symbol that shouldn't be used for any other purpose currently ... Regards, STefan -- Stefan Esser, Zentrum fuer Paralleles Rechnen Tel: +49 221 4706021 Universitaet zu Koeln, Weyertal 80, 50931 Koeln FAX: +49 221 4705160 ============================================================================== http://www.zpr.uni-koeln.de/~se <se@ZPR.Uni-Koeln.DE>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603081413.AA10961>