Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 22:06:53 -0600 From: Bryan Drewery <bryan@shatow.net> To: Devin Teske <dteske@freebsd.org> Cc: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com>, Benjamin Kaduk <bjk@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: old style kernel configuration Message-ID: <50ADA4DD.5010801@shatow.net> In-Reply-To: <CA3661C3-2DF7-40F3-8581-CCE994CC5689@fisglobal.com> References: <CAF6rxgmxiaA1twJf%2BKMv=ZpxCWp1MdL5GEEEFLwBuRqcGpctdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA3661C3-2DF7-40F3-8581-CCE994CC5689@fisglobal.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/21/2012 8:21 PM, Devin Teske wrote: > > On Nov 21, 2012, at 5:58 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: > >> I've been working on removing obsolete information various documents. >> While going through older articles I noticed a few references to the >> "old style" kernel configuration involving running config(1) manually. >> > > I always build kernels with config(1) because it allows me to embed the _entire_ kernel config into the kernel (by using the "-C" option to config(1)). > > Otherwise, if I rely only on the INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE parameter, the comments are stripped from my config prior to embedding (and this is undesirable and thus why we always configure our kernel by executing "config -C -g configname"). > > >> Is there any value in keeping this documented as an alternative to >> "make buildkernel" or should it be treated as an implementation detail? >> > > Value: ability to embed entire config (comments and all) into the kernel > > Maybe this difference/value should be documented. > Maybe it makes sense to add INCLUDE_ENTIRE_CONFIG_FILE? Bryan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50ADA4DD.5010801>