Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 23:45:25 +0400 From: Alex Kapranoff <kapr@acm.org> To: Maxime Henrion <mux@qualys.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Building only a specified list of kernel modules Message-ID: <20010325234525.B484@kapran.bitmcnit.bryansk.su> In-Reply-To: <20010325120046.F777@nebula.cybercable.fr>; from mux@qualys.com on Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 12:00:46PM %2B0200 References: <20010324211140.C4304@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <20010324205005.D777@nebula.cybercable.fr> <20010325101657.A36335@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <20010325120046.F777@nebula.cybercable.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 12:00:46PM +0200, Maxime Henrion wrote: > Peter Pentchev wrote: > > Yeah, blame it all on newfangled means of communication :P > > > > With all due respect, I think my patch would work better in the case > > when one wants to disable all modules except for a select few; yours > > would include a whole lot of NO_KMOD_*, which, given the sheer number > > of buildable modules (which is a good thing), would sum up to more than > > half of /etc/make.conf ;) > > > > G'luck, > > Peter > > My point is that more often we want to disable some modules and not > specify a list of modules which would be scary for beginners and would > lead to errors. Hm? You usually don't have a box with all the hundred NICS supported by FreeBSD EXCEPT FOR ONE, but instead a box with one or several NICS so that all other if_* modules waste your '/'. Same about snd_* drivers. It seems to be more practical to have a list of needed modules. I have a patch almost identical to Peter's in my tree for about a month and it speeds up kernel builds by a factor of 2 or more. -- Alex Kapranoff, Voice: +7(0832)791845 We've lived 2014 hours in the brand new millenium... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010325234525.B484>