Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 01:03:11 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@FreeBSD.org> To: Milan Obuch <freebsd-arch@dino.sk> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Disabling COMPAT_FREEBSD4/5/6/7/9 in default kernel configurations Message-ID: <86ttj4yms0.fsf@ltc.des.dev> In-Reply-To: <20240511071711.0c730e63@zeta.dino.sk> (Milan Obuch's message of "Sat, 11 May 2024 07:17:11 %2B0200") References: <NxZrrMD--3-9@tuta.io> <20240511071711.0c730e63@zeta.dino.sk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Milan Obuch <freebsd-arch@dino.sk> writes: > In general I think it is good move. In my kernel builds I am trying to > use minimal set of features (options, devices) and use loadable modules > whenever possible. Right, so you're either using MINIMAL or a custom kernel config and the presence of these options in GENERIC has absolutely zero impact on you. > I used to remove all COMPAT_FREEBSDn options, now I am keeping 11 and > up - in my notes rust is being listed, but I think some jdk (or needed > bootstrap) required some compatibility, too. So maybe removing COMPAT options wasn't such a good idea after all? > Idea of COMPAT_FREEBSDn being converted into loadable module mentioned > in some reply is nice, I don't know much in this area to have anything > more competent to say. This is not even remotely feasible. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86ttj4yms0.fsf>