Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 18:16:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Snob Art Genre <ben@narcissus.ml.org> To: dmaddox@scsn.net Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1.7 and COMPAT_43 -Reply Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.970513181138.25959B-100000@narcissus.ml.org> In-Reply-To: <19970513194659.14359@cola68.scsn.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
What if I am a programmer who for some reason wants an "INET"-less kernel? The way the system is now, I can take out the INET option and then fix all the holes left by its absence. Under your system, I would also have to hack config(8). Perhaps the existing system should have more obvious documentation -- on my 2.1.7 system neither INET nor COMPAT_43 are marked as mandatory in GENERIC nor in LINT. On Tue, 13 May 1997, Donald J. Maddox wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 1997 at 04:33:49PM -0700, Robert Clark wrote: > > Gas is optional in a car, but it won't run without it. > > That's a clever answer, but I think it still doesn't address my > point... > > Don't you think it would be better if _required_ parts of the kernel > were included by default, thereby saving enormous bandwith wastage on > threads of this nature? Why give newbies the opportunity to shoot > themselves in the foot needlessly? > > If "required options" were simply not listed as config options, > what would be the down side? > > -- > > > Donald J. Maddox > (dmaddox@scsn.net) > > Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96.970513181138.25959B-100000>