Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:47:40 -0600 (MDT) From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: jhb@freebsd.org Cc: danfe@freebsd.org, marcel@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, des@des.no Subject: Re: svn commit: r184193 - in head/sys: arm/conf conf Message-ID: <20081024.164740.74747369.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <200810241031.08780.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <868wsewzos.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20081024132703.GA81378@FreeBSD.org> <200810241031.08780.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r184193 - in head/sys: arm/conf conf Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:31:07 -0400 > On Friday 24 October 2008 09:27:03 am Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:26:43AM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > > > Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> writes: > > > > We already have a better mechanism for including config files. We > > > > should be using that instead of poluting another port with the > > > > DEFAULTS file. > > > > > > Should we even have DEFAULTS files at all? IMHO they just confuse > > > matters by introducing "stealth" options into your config. > > > > I tend to second this. I always try to get everything possible out of > > my kernel to modules, and thus was surprised to see io.ko and mem.ko > > fail to load because they were silently included into my custom kernel. > > > > I understand that some things like 'device isa' and > > 'device npx' aren't really optional, but if something is useful to have, > > but can be loaded as a module, it belongs to GENERIC rather than > > DEFAULTS. Killing the latter altogether and throwing a comment that > > says particular option or device is mandatory in GENERIC is probably > > even better (and more transparent). > > The one thing I think DEFAULTS is useful for are replacing NO_FOO options with > FOO options. That is, if someone wants to turn a feature on by default, I'd > rather them put 'options FOO' in DEFAULTS rather than rename all the > #ifdef's,e tc. to '#ifndef NO_FOO'. Wouldn't it be better to move to a system where we explicitly include std.i386 and have them all defined there? We already encourage stuff like this with advice to include GENERIC with nodev... Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081024.164740.74747369.imp>