Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:59:31 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: danfe@freebsd.org, marcel@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, des@des.no Subject: Re: svn commit: r184193 - in head/sys: arm/conf conf Message-ID: <200810271159.31843.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20081024.164740.74747369.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <868wsewzos.fsf@ds4.des.no> <200810241031.08780.jhb@freebsd.org> <20081024.164740.74747369.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 24 October 2008 06:47:40 pm Warner Losh wrote: > From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> > Subject: Re: svn commit: r184193 - in head/sys: arm/conf conf > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:31:07 -0400 > > > On Friday 24 October 2008 09:27:03 am Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:26:43AM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > > > > Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> writes: > > > > > We already have a better mechanism for including config files. We > > > > > should be using that instead of poluting another port with the > > > > > DEFAULTS file. > > > > > > > > Should we even have DEFAULTS files at all? IMHO they just confuse > > > > matters by introducing "stealth" options into your config. > > > > > > I tend to second this. I always try to get everything possible out of > > > my kernel to modules, and thus was surprised to see io.ko and mem.ko > > > fail to load because they were silently included into my custom kernel. > > > > > > I understand that some things like 'device isa' and > > > 'device npx' aren't really optional, but if something is useful to have, > > > but can be loaded as a module, it belongs to GENERIC rather than > > > DEFAULTS. Killing the latter altogether and throwing a comment that > > > says particular option or device is mandatory in GENERIC is probably > > > even better (and more transparent). > > > > The one thing I think DEFAULTS is useful for are replacing NO_FOO options with > > FOO options. That is, if someone wants to turn a feature on by default, I'd > > rather them put 'options FOO' in DEFAULTS rather than rename all the > > #ifdef's,e tc. to '#ifndef NO_FOO'. > > Wouldn't it be better to move to a system where we explicitly include > std.i386 and have them all defined there? We already encourage stuff > like this with advice to include GENERIC with nodev... I wouldn't mind a std.i386, and if we make config's include keyword fall back to 'sys/conf' for relative path name lookups if the lookup in '.' fails then you can even put those files in sys/conf with the still-clean syntax of 'include std.i386'. However, I don't know about you, but I _never_ build a config by including GENERIC and then weeding stuff out. Too much stuff to weed out. Once I have a customized config for a machine I then include that in development branches to install kernels to different directories under /boot, etc. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200810271159.31843.jhb>