Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 09:27:02 -0500 From: John Nielsen <lists@jnielsen.net> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, dick hoogendijk <dick@nagual.st> Subject: Re: Fw: GENERIC and DEFAULTS Message-ID: <200511030927.02716.lists@jnielsen.net> In-Reply-To: <20051103140316.GL63539@ip.net.ua> References: <075001c5dff5$e859fbc0$8adb7bd1@icarz.com> <20051103122636.S66191@fledge.watson.org> <20051103140316.GL63539@ip.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 03 November 2005 09:03 am, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:27:21PM +0000, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, dick hoogendijk wrote: > > >Sure, but I think it's the *syntax* that matters here? options -> > > >nooptions / i486_cpu -> no??? It's OK to leave GENERIC alone, but HOW > > >are things switched off? > > > > It appears to be an ommission in the file format. I've e-mailed > > Ruslan, who implemented nodevice and nooption, to suggest that he also > > add nocpu. I wonder if there are other missed syntactic bits of note. > > I've committed a code that implements the "nocpu" directive, FWIW. How about "nomakeoptions"? Or is there already a way to do the equivalent? I just tried to rewrite my custom kernel using GENERIC as a starting point and didn't know how to override/remove the "makeoptions DEBUG=-g" line. JN
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200511030927.02716.lists>