Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 05:21:20 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: How about /usr/ports/kernel ? Message-ID: <19980531052120.41610@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <l03130309b195d4c6fd5b@[208.2.87.10]>; from Richard Wackerbarth on Sat, May 30, 1998 at 03:45:31PM -0500 References: <199805301346.PAA29505@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>; <199805301346.PAA29505@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> <19980530182913.04478@follo.net> <l03130309b195d4c6fd5b@[208.2.87.10]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 30, 1998 at 03:45:31PM -0500, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > At 4:29 PM -0000 5/30/98, Eivind Eklund wrote: > > >My own view of this is that config(8) should scan for > > ../../*/conf/files.FreeBSD > > ../../*/conf/options.FreeBSD > > ../../*/conf/files.FreeBSD.<architecture> > > ../../*/conf/options.FreeBSD.<architecture> > >add concatenate this with the appropriate files. > > > >This would allow us to add a new subsystem (like i4b) by just adding a > >new subdir to the kernel. > > > >For some ports we would of course need to add extra kernel hooks, but > >this at least solve the easy cases. > > > >What do people think? > [...on having kernels made as a part of a normal build...] We've discussed this before (off the list), and I tend to agree to some of it. However, how is this related to the proposal above (except for both being part of the kernel build structure)? Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980531052120.41610>