Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 18:01:41 -0400 From: "Donald J. Maddox" <root@cola68.scsn.net> To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1.7 and COMPAT_43 Message-ID: <19970513180141.36385@cola68.scsn.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SCO.3.95.970514090353.606A-100000@kiwi.pinnacle.co.nz>; from jonc@pinnacle.co.nz on Wed, May 14, 1997 at 09:07:13AM %2B1200 References: <33782627.7FD0@barcode.co.il> <Pine.SCO.3.95.970514090353.606A-100000@kiwi.pinnacle.co.nz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970513180141.36385>