From owner-freebsd-questions Tue May 13 20:08:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA10613 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 13 May 1997 20:08:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rosie.scsn.net (scsn.net [206.25.246.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA10602 for ; Tue, 13 May 1997 20:08:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cola47.scsn.net ([206.25.247.47]) by rosie.scsn.net (Post.Office MTA v3.0 release 0121 ID# 0-32322U5000L100S10000) with ESMTP id AAA115 for ; Tue, 13 May 1997 23:01:24 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by cola47.scsn.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) id XAA02379; Tue, 13 May 1997 23:08:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19970513230814.49485@cola47.scsn.net> Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 23:08:14 -0400 From: "Donald J. Maddox" To: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1.7 and COMPAT_43 -Reply References: <19970513212558.50689@cola43.scsn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.69 In-Reply-To: ; from Snob Art Genre on Tue, May 13, 1997 at 07:30:22PM -0700 Reply-To: dmaddox@scsn.net Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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)