Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 19:30:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Toren <rpt@sso.wdl.lmco.com> To: dmaddox@scsn.net Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1.7 and COMPAT_43 Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970513192757.17572B-100000@hps> In-Reply-To: <19970513180141.36385@cola68.scsn.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 13 May 1997, Donald J. Maddox wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 1997 at 09:07:13AM +1200, jonc@pinnacle.co.nz wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 May 1997, Nadav Eiron wrote:
> >
> > > jonc@pinnacle.co.nz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hmm,
> > > >
> > > > Just tried recompiling a kernel for 2.1.7, and removed the COMPAT_43
> > > > option from the list. Upon rebooting, login behaves slightly strangely:
> > >
> > > Why did you remove COMPAT_43? It's one of the things that's not meant to
> > > be removed from the kernel config file (as the comment states). Most
> > > noteably it breaks xterm.
> >
> > The kernel config files do *NOT* say that its a required option (in either
> > GENERIC or LINT); they need updating if that's the case.
> >
> > And as to why, just fooling around with how small a kernel I can get
> > that still boots and works..
>
> 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?
>
>
> Donald J. Maddox
> (dmaddox@scsn.net)
Have you never bought a new car? They invented the concept of the
"required option". I once worked for Ford Aerospace, and it was
always a joke that we needed a dedicated computer system to keep the
required options straight, and the customer confused....
====================================================
Rip Toren | The bad news is that C++ is not an object-oriented |
rpt@sso.wdl.lmco.com | programming language. .... The good news is that |
| C++ supports object-oriented programming. |
| C++ Programming & Fundamental Concepts |
| by Anderson & Heinze |
====================================================
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.91.970513192757.17572B-100000>