From owner-freebsd-current Sun May 31 14:52:55 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA28266 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 14:52:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.119.24.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA28258 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 14:52:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA22872; Sun, 31 May 1998 21:52:47 GMT Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id XAA01079; Sun, 31 May 1998 23:52:33 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19980531235232.04296@follo.net> Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 23:52:32 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund To: Richard Wackerbarth Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: How about /usr/ports/kernel ? References: ; <199805301346.PAA29505@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>; <199805301346.PAA29505@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> <19980530182913.04478@follo.net> <19980531052120.41610@follo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i In-Reply-To: ; from Richard Wackerbarth on Sun, May 31, 1998 at 11:50:33AM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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. >>> ../../*/conf/options.FreeBSD. >>> 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