Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:53:45 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE in GENERIC Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1001141652140.49545@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <4B4E1586.7090102@FreeBSD.org> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1001110348100.92627@serrsnyy.serrofq.bet> <20100110.210204.787670930858346133.imp@bsdimp.com> <4B4D109A.5060500@FreeBSD.org> <20100112.174326.337739863389869251.imp@bsdimp.com> <4B4E1586.7090102@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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). Am I right in thinking that even with this change, you still end up with a single giant config file whereas it may have been made up of several files in the original and assembled using the include directive? This means some caution (and a caveat of some sort) are still required. I agree entirely that we should be including the comments by default. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1001141652140.49545>