From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 4 18:22:43 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DC1116A4CE for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 18:22:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from april.chuckr.org (april.chuckr.org [66.92.151.30]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DF4E43D55 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 18:22:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from chuckr@chuckr.org) Received: from [66.92.151.195] (july.chuckr.org [66.92.151.195]) by april.chuckr.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D45120D2; Wed, 4 May 2005 14:16:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4279128B.9080106@chuckr.org> Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 18:20:59 +0000 From: Chuck Robey User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050316) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kris Kennaway References: <20050504040349.GA1460@gad.glazov.net> <20050504041730.GA45260@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20050504041730.GA45260@xor.obsecurity.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: Vitaly Bogdanov cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Building kernel without some modules X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 18:22:43 -0000 Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:03:49AM +0500, Vitaly Bogdanov wrote: > >>Hi. >>Is it possible to build kernel without compiling unnecessary modules? >>My system - freebsd5.3. > > > See make.conf(5) That wasn't very nice. It's not that it's wrong, but the fella sounded to me like he was asking if a target existed, and not everyone is familiar with our make. Responding like you did had the sole function of trying to shut off any other responses, and was just not helpful at all to the querent. I honestly consider that what's happened to our make, the slow code changes that have just ruined it for cross-platform portability, to be scandolous (sp?). There was no reason that the stuff needed to go into using all those specialized libraries that exist nowhere else but FreeBSD. We have a functionally very , very nice make, but it's not so good that it knocks out the competition ... gmake has more than a few points that are definitely superior than ours (as the reverse is also true). Making it so totally non-portable was a great example of bad spartsmanship. I can't say that Linux isn't equally guilty of it, heck, more so, but that doesn't excuse it, sorry. > > Kris