Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:30:30 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Subject: Re: svn commit: r216746 - head/sys/conf Message-ID: <4D1A1EB6.5040009@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <4D194551.7000004@freebsd.org> References: <201012272352.oBRNqeEb040247@svn.freebsd.org> <20101228015905.GA81514@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4D194551.7000004@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/27/2010 19:02, Colin Percival wrote: > On 12/27/10 17:59, Steve Kargl wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 11:52:40PM +0000, Colin Percival wrote: >>> Make it possible to specify WITHOUT_MODULES in a kernel config file. >> Can you explain how this differs from >> makeoptions NO_MODULES >> which has been able to do for years? > NO_MODULES means what it says: No modules. > > WITHOUT_MODULES="foo bar baz" means "go ahead and build modules except for foo, > bar, and baz". Most of the other uses of the WITHOUT_xxx in the tree means omit feature xxx entirely... I usually hate to nit-pick names, but in this case I think "OMIT_MODULES" would be a better name and less confusing for the other uses of WITHOUT_FOO in the tree... Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D1A1EB6.5040009>