Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:01:20 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, rwatson@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE in GENERIC Message-ID: <4B4F7810.2080003@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20100114.105622.457034909117828677.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <4B4E1586.7090102@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1001141652140.49545@fledge.watson.org> <20100114.102142.328914705071816274.imp@bsdimp.com> <20100114.105622.457034909117828677.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/14/2010 9:56 AM, M. Warner Losh wrote: + * If INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE is defined, then we include the config file + * verbatim (and that's the only config file we include). Otherwise, if + * INCLUDE_CONFIG is defined, we include it. Otherwise, we include nothing + * at all. FWIW, I actually think this makes it worse, not better. The INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE option should include everything needed to recreate the kernel. If it doesn't, it's worse than worthless, it leads to a false sense of security which makes it dangerous. I wasn't actually aware that if you do the config -C trick that you'll get ONLY the one file, not everything. Frankly I'm flabbergasted that we could do something so stupid. And on that note, I officially give up. I have better things to do with my time than argue about this any more, and it's pretty clear that my perspective on this is not shared. Maybe it's not even reasonable, who knows? Good luck, Doug -- Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/ Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B4F7810.2080003>