From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Dec 10 21:56:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA05537 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 21:56:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA05506 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 21:56:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id VAA24908; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 21:54:58 -0800 (PST) To: Jonathan Mini cc: The Classiest Man Alive , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why so many steps to build new kernel? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:00:15 PST." <19971210160015.21473@micron.mini.net> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 21:54:58 -0800 Message-ID: <24904.881819698@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > What I have in mind is rather simple, but it requires the following : > > 1) a file, which is MAINTAINED, which contains all of the possible > options, their classes, and a simple comment for each one. Woog. It's that "maintained" bit which is the hard part, and frankly I'm more than somewhat skeptical of this for the long-term unless it's taken to the next level of functionality which will properly encourage its upkeep. What I'm thinking of here, namely, is the total replacement of config by a new utility which tries for a different configuration file format, one "rich" enough to support a GUI interface. This has always been a shortcoming of the current one, and the need to keep GENERIC and LINT files around just to "document" it is rather significant proof of its shortcomings. If you're really this ambitious then tou won't get anywhere by simply trying to paper over config, you need to replace it. Jordan