From owner-freebsd-current Wed Dec 15 7:26:37 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de (dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de [139.174.243.252]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5137D153DD for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 07:26:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from olli@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA28624 for freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:26:29 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from olli) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:26:29 +0100 (CET) From: Oliver Fromme Message-Id: <199912151526.QAA28624@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: syscons extension: "propellers" Organization: Administration TU Clausthal Reply-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 RZTUC(3) PL2] Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Sheldon Hearn wrote in list.freebsd-current: > On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 21:26:04 +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > I'm not yet 100% convinced that it would make sense to separate > > the propellers code into a module. Is 5 Kbyte of kernel code > > really that much of a problem? > > No, but think ahead, into a future where we use a teeny tiny kernel into > which we plug lots of modules. Sure, in that case, syscons itself should be a module, shouldn't it? Regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, Leibnizstr. 18/61, 38678 Clausthal, Germany (Info: finger userinfo:olli@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de) "In jedem Stück Kohle wartet ein Diamant auf seine Geburt" (Terry Pratchett) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message