Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 23:08:14 -0400 From: "Donald J. Maddox" <root@cola47.scsn.net> To: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1.7 and COMPAT_43 -Reply Message-ID: <19970513230814.49485@cola47.scsn.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96.970513192959.26584A-100000@narcissus.ml.org>; from Snob Art Genre on Tue, May 13, 1997 at 07:30:22PM -0700 References: <19970513212558.50689@cola43.scsn.net> <Pine.NEB.3.96.970513192959.26584A-100000@narcissus.ml.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 13, 1997 at 07:30:22PM -0700, Snob Art Genre wrote:
> 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?
Change what working code? I admit ignorance of config internals,
but if seems to me that you would just need to change occurences of:
#ifdef INET
to
#ifndef INETLESS
No?
--
Donald J. Maddox
(dmaddox@scsn.net)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970513230814.49485>