From owner-freebsd-questions Tue May 13 18:16:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA00840 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 13 May 1997 18:16:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from narcissus.ml.org (root@brosenga.Pitzer.edu [134.173.120.201]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA00835 for ; Tue, 13 May 1997 18:16:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ben@localhost) by narcissus.ml.org (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA26020; Tue, 13 May 1997 18:16:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 18:16:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Snob Art Genre To: dmaddox@scsn.net cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1.7 and COMPAT_43 -Reply In-Reply-To: <19970513194659.14359@cola68.scsn.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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."