Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 16:14:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Shawn Ramsey <shawn@luke.cpl.net> To: dmaddox@scsn.net Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1.7 and COMPAT_43 Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970513161349.11805B-100000@luke.cpl.net> In-Reply-To: <19970513180141.36385@cola68.scsn.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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? I think the [KEEP THIS!] sets it off(or should) that you shouldnt be removing it. Especially if you don't know what it is for in the first place.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.970513161349.11805B-100000>