Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 11:11:19 -0400 From: "Sexton, Robert" <sextonr.crestvie@squared.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Kernel Config (Was: GENERIC Kernel Debate) Message-ID: <7366895B0187397C@mg01a.mhs.squared.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Is it possible for us to get away from the use of compilers in kernel config? I come from the SCO world, and we have a nice mechanism for adding and removing devices without recompiling the kernel. It does have to be relinked, but that's a much smaller job. I'm actually oversimplifying a little. SCO (And AT&T, I think) use a table-driven method for deciding what to link in, and then compile a few small binaries which contain tuning parameters. For turnkey systems, they supply a small, primitive compiler for the job. I have touched a few Linux systems, and I'm getting used to the Berkely style kernel config mechanism. I think it's easier to find source code on the BSD kernel system, but ease of configuration leaves a lot to be desired. I don't think make is really a suitable tool for kernel config. I think we all ultimately want the all-singing, all-dancing loadable kernel modules with PnP detection and auto config of devices while simultaneously selecting proper drivers for compatible hardware while working around all known incompatibilites. In the mean time, how about a better way to build a custom kernel, or tune an existing kernel? Robert Sexton.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7366895B0187397C>