From owner-freebsd-questions Wed May 14 08:18:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA14447 for questions-outgoing; Wed, 14 May 1997 08:18:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.PII.COM (pii.com [192.77.209.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA14442 for ; Wed, 14 May 1997 08:18:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from PII.COM by PII.COM (4.1/SMI-4.4) id AA05937; Wed, 14 May 97 08:21:25 PDT Received: from PII-Message_Server by pii.com with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 14 May 1997 08:22:13 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 08:16:51 -0700 From: Robert Clark To: root@cola47.scsn.net, questions@FreeBSD.ORG, dmaddox@scsn.net Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1.7 and COMPAT_43 -Reply -Reply Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk How about a #ifdef BEGINNER or NOVICE that causes all 'nonoptional' items to be included. [RC] >>> "Donald J. Maddox" 05/13/97 08:08pm >>> 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)