From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 21 01:37:57 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D6316A4CE; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 01:37:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lakermmtao11.cox.net (lakermmtao11.cox.net [68.230.240.28]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F63143D1D; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 01:37:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from conrads@cox.net) Received: from dolphin.local.net ([68.11.71.51]) by lakermmtao11.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02.01 201-2131-111-104-103-20040709) with ESMTP id <20040721013727.ICJM9104.lakermmtao11.cox.net@dolphin.local.net>; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:37:27 -0400 Received: from dolphin.local.net (localhost.local.net [127.0.0.1]) by dolphin.local.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i6L1bQks023075; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:37:26 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from conrads@dolphin.local.net) Received: (from conrads@localhost) by dolphin.local.net (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i6L1bQas023074; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:37:26 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from conrads) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.5 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20040721010342.GA8398@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:37:26 -0500 (CDT) Organization: A Rag-Tag Band of Drug-Crazed Hippies From: "Conrad J. Sabatier" To: Brooks Davis cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-config@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: conrads@cox.net List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 01:37:58 -0000 On 21-Jul-2004 Brooks Davis wrote: > You can have my simple flat file kernel config when you pry it from > my cold, dead hands and I know a number of other develoeprs share > this viewpoint. All my experiences with the linux visual kernel > config tool have been annoying and I've got friends with more > expierence with it that have much less kind things to say. Well, the idea is not to replace the current use of a single, flat kernel config file, only to ease its creation. The end result would be essentially the same, although with a slightly different arrangement of items, of course. > That said, so long as it doesn't impose too much developer burden, > an improved set of backend files that did a better job of handling > dependencies and knew which options where relevent given the > configured set of devices could be useful. Yes, I think it's an interesting area for exploration. > There is a valid question of what a depenency means. For instance, > you can't really have IP networking without lo(4) (there's a null > pointer derefrence if you try), but since you can load it as a > module, should you have to compile it in? Hmm, good point. This will obviously require some careful thinking. As I told Julian Elischer just now in another (private) reply, I don't have even the first sketches of such a reorganization on the drawing board. I was curious to see how such an idea would be received first. If there's a lot of resistance (which I could certainly understand), I won't even bother. But if there's an interest...I'd certainly be willing to invest some time in it and see what I could cook up. So far, no one's yelling "blasphemer!" or anything. But then it's still early. We'll see. :-) -- Conrad J. Sabatier -- "In Unix veritas"