Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:31:08 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r216746 - head/sys/conf Message-ID: <4D1A1EDC.8010603@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20101228020900.GA81611@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <201012272352.oBRNqeEb040247@svn.freebsd.org> <20101228015905.GA81514@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4D194551.7000004@freebsd.org> <20101228020900.GA81611@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/27/2010 19:09, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 06:02:57PM -0800, Colin Percival wrote: >> On 12/27/10 17:59, Steve Kargl wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 11:52:40PM +0000, Colin Percival wrote: >>>> Make it possible to specify WITHOUT_MODULES in a kernel config file. >>> Can you explain how this differs from >>> makeoptions NO_MODULES >>> which has been able to do for years? >> NO_MODULES means what it says: No modules. >> >> WITHOUT_MODULES="foo bar baz" means "go ahead and build modules except for foo, >> bar, and baz". >> > Thanks. The distincion wasn't clear from the commit log. > I read it as "Build a kernel WITHOUT building MODULES", > which is what NO_MODULES does. which is why I'd like to have its name changed: it is confusing this way... Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D1A1EDC.8010603>