From owner-freebsd-questions Tue May 13 15:06:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA19485 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 13 May 1997 15:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (root@agora.rdrop.com [199.2.210.241]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA19476 for ; Tue, 13 May 1997 15:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rosie.scsn.net (scsn.net [206.25.246.12]) by agora.rdrop.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA26499 for ; Tue, 13 May 1997 15:01:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cola68.scsn.net ([206.25.247.68]) by rosie.scsn.net (Post.Office MTA v3.0 release 0121 ID# 0-32322U5000L100S10000) with ESMTP id AAA128 for ; Tue, 13 May 1997 17:55:19 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by cola68.scsn.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) id SAA01347; Tue, 13 May 1997 18:01:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19970513180141.36385@cola68.scsn.net> Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 18:01:41 -0400 From: "Donald J. Maddox" To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1.7 and COMPAT_43 References: <33782627.7FD0@barcode.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.69 In-Reply-To: ; from jonc@pinnacle.co.nz on Wed, May 14, 1997 at 09:07:13AM +1200 Reply-To: dmaddox@scsn.net Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, May 14, 1997 at 09:07:13AM +1200, jonc@pinnacle.co.nz wrote: > On Tue, 13 May 1997, Nadav Eiron wrote: > > > jonc@pinnacle.co.nz wrote: > > > > > > Hmm, > > > > > > Just tried recompiling a kernel for 2.1.7, and removed the COMPAT_43 > > > option from the list. Upon rebooting, login behaves slightly strangely: > > > > Why did you remove COMPAT_43? It's one of the things that's not meant to > > be removed from the kernel config file (as the comment states). Most > > noteably it breaks xterm. > > The kernel config files do *NOT* say that its a required option (in either > GENERIC or LINT); they need updating if that's the case. > > And as to why, just fooling around with how small a kernel I can get > that still boots and works.. This raises a question that I have often wondered about: Why are *required* parts of the system listed in the config file as _options_? I mean, if it's _required_, then it's *not* an _option_; and if it's an option, it's not required, right? It seems to me that this just serves to confuse new users. Why not remove these "required options" and include required functionality unconditionally? -- Donald J. Maddox (dmaddox@scsn.net)