Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 14:22:59 +0200 From: Marc Fonvieille <blackend@FreeBSD.org> To: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> Cc: doc-developers@FreeBSD.org, Joel Dahl <joel@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: docs/87445: comments for improvement of handbook/kernelconfig-config.html Message-ID: <20051015122259.GA1202@gothic.blackend.org> Resent-Message-ID: <20051015123739.GD1202@gothic.blackend.org> In-Reply-To: <20051015055837.2a3b9035.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> References: <200510142331.j9ENV8nA099971@freefall.freebsd.org> <1129364021.653.11.camel@dude.automatvapen.se> <20051015055837.2a3b9035.trhodes@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 05:58:37AM -0400, Tom Rhodes wrote: > > That is my most hated section of all. Lemmie try to explain my > peeves with this chapter: > > o It's a major (and I mean MAJOR) nightmare to deal with keeping > in sync with reality. > > o There are several things with regards to kernel's not fully > discussed. For instance, look at the differences between > the way devices are listed for more archs then just i386. > > o This section should discuss some of the basic options which > effect the building of kernels. > > o This chapter should be merged with cutting edge and upgraded > to have an upgrading section. I think it's stupid to have > them separate when many of the aspects criss cross virtually. > > o I HATE HATE HATE the discussion on monolithic/modular. Awhile > ago (months/years?) it discussed doing a kernel rebuild in > relation to SunOS kernels. I'm glad that's gone. But in many > cases you don't need a custom kernel anymore. "rites of passage" > my butt. Yea, it's something an admin should know, but I > think the discussion is way out of hand here. > I think you're right. Nowadays building a custom kernel is for: - experimented (non lazy?) admins/users - embedded or old hardware With the amount of RAM in todays boxes, the fact quite everything exist as a module, the kernelconfig section should be part of cutting-edge. We should only mention "kldload foo" in various places we talk about kernel/driver support for a particular feature. One advantage of just mentioning "kldload foo" is that it's arch/release/whatever independant (most of time). > o I'm not dealing well with this 4.X/5.X/6.X stuff. It seems > that RE@ is going to drop 5.X after 5.5, and 4.X is virtually > gone. Not from production environments, but a lot of developers > I *THINK* aren't paying attention to it. > > o Blah. I'm tired. > > I'm also finding myself with an urge to jump back into FreeBSD > and complete a large project. This, and disposing of the > FAQ are just two things I'm thinking about. Some day people > will wake up to some major change in the docs, and the > FAQ may be gone or at least "quick reading" clean. Or perhaps > 4.X will be knifed from the handbook. And most likely, the > only people who will expect it coming will be those that aren't > going to stand in my way.[1] :) > > [1]: Please don't take that as if it's rude, I'm actually > joking around with it. Cause I know that if someone > tried that, well, to core && doceng they'd be explaining. > If you add to the tree the "famous ghost" called "dynamic built FAQ at the end of each Handbook chapter", no one will object :) Marc
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051015122259.GA1202>