Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 22:54:47 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, sextonr.crestvie@squared.com Subject: Re: Kernel Config (Was: GENERIC Kernel Debate) Message-ID: <199607120554.WAA00690@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199607111918.VAA15753@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Jul 11, 96 09:18:40 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Is it possible for us to get away from the use of compilers in kernel > > config? > > The problem is that we could no longer use compile-time options. They > used to be simple -DFOO macros in the cc command line, and quite many > have been converted to "opt_foo.h" include options (so the Makefile > dependencies will work again). However, converting every (major) > #ifdef into a run-time configurable option will at least take a long > time, and it doesn't seem to be *that* desirable at all. Until you boot -c and want to change the probe-enable flags on com4:. Then you revel in the sysconfig and the boot -c use the same database and that such a conversion was thoughfully done by some sucker^H^H^H^H^H^Hhero. > AT&T and SCO and [insert your favorite commercial vendor] had a > totally different driving force to not use compilers -- they simply > didn't want the users the source code. Thus, compile-time options > were out of the question at all. And they didn't want the users to have bundled compilers. The reduced disk space requirements for the 95% of the user population running vertical market software instead of doing developement was just a happy side-effect. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607120554.WAA00690>