From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 24 22:02:55 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 48B2716A4CE; Sat, 24 Jul 2004 22:02:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.village.org [168.103.84.182]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F96443D3F; Sat, 24 Jul 2004 22:02:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i6OM10M6029659; Sat, 24 Jul 2004 16:01:00 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 16:01:10 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20040724.160110.127665912.imp@bsdimp.com> To: jhamby@anobject.com From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <4101DC69.9030309@anobject.com> References: <4101DC69.9030309@anobject.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 22:02:55 -0000 In message: <4101DC69.9030309@anobject.com> Jake Hamby writes: : Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: : > On 21-Jul-2004 Devon H. O'Dell wrote: : > : > : >>I'm sure this will become another bikeshed, so I suggest whoever came : >>up with the idea to put up or shut up. People are interested in : >>solutions, not suggestions. : > : > : > Agreed. And the original proponent of the idea was me. I just wanted : > to see if there was any willingness to even consider something like : > this before I went and did a lot of work for nothing. : > : > Seems the general concensus is that most people are OK with the idea, : > depending on the implementation. : > : > I'll be quiet now until/unless I can actually come up with something. : > :-) : : If you are looking to improve the current build process, here's an idea : someone could implement that would save a lot of people a lot of time... : : My biggest annoyance with building the kernel, compared to Linux, is : that it insists on building all of the possible kernel modules, even : though I only want to build the ones that make sense for my hardware. : In Linux, despite the drawbacks of the menu-based config, it is nice : being able to easily specify Yes, Module, or No for most options. : : The least intrusive approach would probably be to add a second config : file (e.g. "MYKERNEL.modules") which would contain only the names of the : modules to build in some make-friendly format. You could then modify : config(8) to automatically copy this file, if it exists, to the object : directory where it would be included by the appropriate Makefile. If no : .modules file exists, then it would continue the current behavior of : building all possible modules. What's wrong with adding: makeoptions MODULES_OVERRIDE="a b c" to your config file? It is already supported. Warner