From owner-freebsd-questions Tue May 13 19:30:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA08194 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 13 May 1997 19:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from narcissus.ml.org (root@brosenga.Pitzer.edu [134.173.120.201]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA08188 for ; Tue, 13 May 1997 19:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ben@localhost) by narcissus.ml.org (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA26650; Tue, 13 May 1997 19:30:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 19:30:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Snob Art Genre To: dmaddox@scsn.net cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1.7 and COMPAT_43 -Reply In-Reply-To: <19970513212558.50689@cola43.scsn.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 13 May 1997, Donald J. Maddox wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 1997 at 06:16:43PM -0700, Snob Art Genre wrote: > > What if I am a programmer who for some reason wants an "INET"-less kernel? > > The way the system is now, I can take out the INET option and then fix all > > the holes left by its absence. Under your system, I would also have to > > hack config(8). > > > > Perhaps the existing system should have more obvious documentation -- on > > my 2.1.7 system neither INET nor COMPAT_43 are marked as mandatory in > > GENERIC nor in LINT. > > Ok... But since an INET-less kernel is clearly the exception, wouldn't > it make more sense to have an 'INETLESS' kernel option rather than > an 'INET' option that is really not an option for most people? Why change working code when a trivial change to the documentation would accomplish the same thing? > -- > > > Donald J. Maddox > (dmaddox@scsn.net) > > Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."