Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:40:01 +0100 From: Ulrich =?utf-8?B?U3DDtnJsZWlu?= <uqs@spoerlein.net> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, "Robert N. M. Watson" <rwatson@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE in GENERIC Message-ID: <20100117074001.GJ96430@acme.spoerlein.net> In-Reply-To: <20100115085856.GA2556@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <4B4E1586.7090102@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1001141652140.49545@fledge.watson.org> <20100114.102142.328914705071816274.imp@bsdimp.com> <20100114.105622.457034909117828677.imp@bsdimp.com> <4B4F7810.2080003@FreeBSD.org> <86625798-F339-4863-8F97-63B5232A6CF7@freebsd.org> <20100115085856.GA2556@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 15.01.2010 at 19:58:57 +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2010-Jan-14 20:12:24 +0000, "Robert N. M. Watson" <rwatson@freebsd.org> wrote:
> >- Desktop/server users who want their system to work without any
> > special tuning or magic, and likely feel the comments they put in
> > configuration files are important
>
> As far as I'm concerned, the most critical bit of my kernel config file
> is the $Header...$ comment - which lets me extract the remainder of the
> file from my CVS repository. I don't currently use includes (because
> most of my config files have roots pre-dating the include directive).
>
> I find it a PITA that INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE _doesn't_ include comments
> (or at least my $Header$ line) by default.
Seriously, is that the only "comment" people care about? I really have a
hard time coming up with *important* stuff that people put in config's
comments and then somehow lose the connection between comment and
running kernel.
> IMO, it would be useful to have an "include this literal string in the
> kernel" config directive. This would allow config file version control
> information to be embedded without needing the comments. And that would
> resolve the issue of embedding fully expanded details of all included
> files without the hassle of keeping the comments around.
Ok, this I can understand. We could then call this directive something
... um like ident perhaps? :)
Seems like all that people want to do is simply:
cpu i386
ident SERVER
descr "$Id: foo,v"
That shouldn't be too hard? FWIW I think it is more important to have a
way to recreate the current running kernel than to get a
verbatim/expanded copy of all config files used to create it in the
first place.
Just my two cents,
Uli
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100117074001.GJ96430>