Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 23:52:32 +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: <19980531235232.04296@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <l03130310b196ef2053d9@[208.2.87.10]>; from Richard Wackerbarth on Sun, May 31, 1998 at 11:50:33AM -0500 References: <l03130309b195d4c6fd5b@[208.2.87.10]>; <199805301346.PAA29505@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>; <199805301346.PAA29505@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> <19980530182913.04478@follo.net> <l03130309b195d4c6fd5b@[208.2.87.10]> <19980531052120.41610@follo.net> <l03130310b196ef2053d9@[208.2.87.10]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, May 31, 1998 at 11:50:33AM -0500, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > At 3:21 AM -0000 5/31/98, Eivind Eklund wrote: >> 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. > >> [...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)? > > I think that it is a "detail". Rather than increasing the complexity > of "config", I would use the capability of "make" and the preprocessors > to present to "config", a single list of elements that it must process. Now I get you. Yes, I agree this would be preferable given automated kernel builds (and I agree that automated kernel builds would be preferable :-) However, to be able to do automated kernel builds we have to have a way of specifying which kernels to build which do not come as a shock to our userbase (this is a political necessity; I don't think either of us would get any way arguing otherwise). This probably mean that we'll have to support the use of config(8) in the way it is presently used for a transition period of at least a year. This again mean that if we want to do the above during the next year (minimum), we'll have to add it to config. I want the above to be added yesterday (well, really in time for 2.2.0-RELEASE, that is in February last year :-) Do you disagree with the way of adding this meta-information to contributed subsystems? I'm all ears for anything better that give the same capabilites for external people modifying the system - I just haven't found any better way. [... deleted: points on Unix and design which I agree with but don't always find myself bright enough to be able to follow ...] 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?19980531235232.04296>