Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:47:25 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> To: Nikolay Denev <ndenev@gmail.com> Cc: dougb@FreeBSD.org, jhb@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE in GENERIC Message-ID: <20100114222154.M62659@delplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <D1B03E54-A2FD-470D-9ED9-87A26EAF2A4E@gmail.com> References: <201001131515.08602.jhb@freebsd.org> <4B4E2ECA.90905@FreeBSD.org> <201001131633.09669.jhb@freebsd.org> <20100113.150435.650865766805848595.imp@bsdimp.com> <D1B03E54-A2FD-470D-9ED9-87A26EAF2A4E@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, Nikolay Denev wrote: > I just want to add a user's point of view : > To me INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE sounds like the > whole config file will be included, > not just the output after preprocessing. It used to mean to actually include the config file. This became a broken meaning when the include directive was added in 2001, if this directory wass actually used, so that a typical config file looked like: include MOST options extra nooptions noextra This was fixed in 2007, but at the same time, for some reason stripping the comments became the default. Of course GENERIC shouldn't have verbose comments (except meta ones). Please remove any others :-). There are only 2 really annoying ones in the i386 GENERIC: - one for puc - a set of 3 separate 1-line extra ones for bpf, the first line of which essentially just repeats the expansion of the acronym `bpf' but does it with different capitalization. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100114222154.M62659>