From owner-freebsd-current Wed Oct 9 11:20:29 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA17848 for current-outgoing; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 11:20:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA17839 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 11:20:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA22717; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 11:20:25 -0700 (PDT) To: Charles Henrich cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 961006-SNAP comments In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 09 Oct 1996 09:30:44 EDT." <199610091330.JAA05706@crh.cl.msu.edu> Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 11:20:25 -0700 Message-ID: <22715.844885225@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > in the general case, the default settings are quite appropriate. How many > problems will be generated by people disabling the wrong things, or stumbling > around inside the editor just mucking things up because they dont know what > they are doing? I don't know, why don't we let users test it and find out! That's the whole purpose of these snapshots, after all! :-) > If we force a config it has to be brain damaged, i.e: > > Do you have an Adaptec 2940 SCSI Controller (Yes/No) > Do you have an NE2000 Compatable Ethernet Card (Yes/No) > Yes: What IRQ is this card located at? > What IOMEM Address does this card use? Yes, that has, in fact, always been my intention - using the visual userconfig by default is just a temporary measure and a "driven" userconfig is on my TODO list, where a hierarchy of questions is organized into a tree (ever play that earliest of computer guessing games called "animals?"). It wouldn't be so tedious as to query you for every card at the top level, but would ask you instead for broad catagories ("Do you have a network adaptor? Is it PCI, EISA or PCI? ISA? OK, then out of the above list, which one is it?"). That's why we added two options for USERCONFIG and VISUAL_USERCONFIG recently - I want to be able to compile in alternate userconfigs (though I think I'll just make this driven userconfig feature a command off the existing one, so I can also compile BOTH into the boot.flp kernel). Jordan