Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 19:35:34 -0400 From: "Donald J. Maddox" <root@cola68.scsn.net> To: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1.7 and COMPAT_43 Message-ID: <19970513193534.42852@cola68.scsn.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970513161349.11805B-100000@luke.cpl.net>; from Shawn Ramsey on Tue, May 13, 1997 at 04:14:41PM -0700 References: <19970513180141.36385@cola68.scsn.net> <Pine.BSF.3.95.970513161349.11805B-100000@luke.cpl.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 13, 1997 at 04:14:41PM -0700, Shawn Ramsey wrote:
> > This raises a question that I have often wondered about:
> >
> > Why are *required* parts of the system listed in the config file
> > as _options_?
> >
> > I mean, if it's _required_, then it's *not* an _option_; and if it's an
> > option, it's not required, right?
> >
> > It seems to me that this just serves to confuse new users. Why not remove
> > these "required options" and include required functionality unconditionally?
>
> I think the [KEEP THIS!] sets it off(or should) that you shouldnt be
> removing it. Especially if you don't know what it is for in the first
> place.
That does not address my question:
Why are _requirements_ listed in the config file as _options_?
Why are they listed in the config file *at all*? Since they represent
required functionality, wouldn't it be better if those 'options'
were included in the kernel build unconditionally? Don't you think
that would save a lot of bandwith on this list caused by newbies who
inadvertently left a mandatory 'option' out of their config?
--
Donald J. Maddox
(dmaddox@scsn.net)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970513193534.42852>