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>