From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Nov 5 17:57:41 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id RAA26605 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 1995 17:57:41 -0800 Received: from eel.dataplex.net (EEL.DATAPLEX.NET [199.183.109.245]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA26600 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 1995 17:57:38 -0800 Received: from [199.183.109.242] (cod [199.183.109.242]) by eel.dataplex.net (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA03070; Sun, 5 Nov 1995 19:53:41 -0600 X-Sender: rkw@shark.dataplex.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 19:53:59 -0600 To: davidg@Root.COM From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Subject: Re: More nits Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, hackers@freebsd.org Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk At 7:24 PM 11/5/95, David Greenman wrote: >>Ok, to implement this, bracket the entirety of /sys/i386/i386/userconfig.c >>with #ifdef USERCONFIG/#endif, and then apply this to > > The "right" way to do this is to change file.i386 to indicate that >userconfig.c is "optional" on the userconfig option, and then apply your >suggested diff. > This change is not going into 2.1, however. Now, David. This "fix" addresses a very real problem of kernel bloat. A very quick search of the source tree will establish that it does not break anything. It is NOT any change in functionality (or code, for that matter) in your default case. IMHO, the "risk" of adding this to 2.1 is much lower than the risk of Jordan's "addressing" the inability to sysconfig /var. (Neither of which would worry me) Is there a double standard? ---- Richard Wackerbarth rkw@dataplex.net