on 30.10.2005 11:36 Uhr Cristiano Deana said the following:
Hi,
I've seen that 'GENERIC' file has been modified, moving some lines to
'DEFAULTS':
device isa
device mem # Memory and kernel memory devices
device io # I/O device
Why?
On Thursday 15 December 2005 03:49 pm, Matt Emmerton wrote:
I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but here's my $0.02:
Why not mark these entries as 'mandatory' in /usr/src/sys/conf/files*
instead?
This will cause config to error out if they are not specified in the
config, and handles
On Thursday 15 December 2005 03:49 pm, Matt Emmerton wrote:
I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but here's my $0.02:
Why not mark these entries as 'mandatory' in /usr/src/sys/conf/files*
instead?
This will cause config to error out if they are not specified in the
config, and
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:27:15 +0100
Philippe PEGON [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ken Menzel wrote:
options INVARIANT_SUPPORT
nooptions WITNESS
nooptions WITNESS_SKIP_SPIN
If I include GENERIC can I comment out the following?
#cpuI486_CPU
#cpuI586_CPU
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
dick hoogendijk wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:27:15 +0100
Philippe PEGON [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ken Menzel wrote:
options INVARIANT_SUPPORT
nooptions WITNESS
nooptions WITNESS_SKIP_SPIN
If I include GENERIC can I comment out the following?
#cpuI486_CPU
#cpu
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:27:21PM +, 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
On Thursday 03 November 2005 09:03 am, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:27:21PM +, 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
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 09:27:02AM -0500, John Nielsen wrote:
On Thursday 03 November 2005 09:03 am, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:27:21PM +, Robert Watson wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, dick hoogendijk wrote:
Sure, but I think it's the *syntax* that matters here?
Kris Kennaway wrote:
You've clearly never spent much time on the
FreeBSD support forums, where every few days
someone posts for help
1) with an error caused by removing one of those
Do not remove this! lines, and
2) for help on getting X working when they forgot
to add /dev/io and
dont remove this line! in our kernel, we can have
our DEAFULTS file. No difference what we/you choose, but a little
explanation for any of us about changes I thing should be in GENERIC
or in DEFAULTS (better in UPDATING).
Thank to you and all re@ people for this great 6.0. Good job.
--
Cris, member
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:43:29PM -0800, Rob wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
You've clearly never spent much time on the FreeBSD
support forums, where every few days someone posts
for help
1) with an error caused by removing one of those
Do not remove this! lines, and
2) for help
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 23:43:29 -0800 (PST)
Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is then to follow this strategy also for X:
instead of a DEFAULTS file, have a /etc/rc.d/xdm
script, which starts X and loads the modules io/mem
if needed.
Not everybody uses xdm, some use the KDE version
Kris Kennaway wrote:
You missed the part where I said that the error is
commonly reported by people who have chosen not to
build modules.
The DEFAULTS construction is put in place to help
'novices' not to do stupid things (as removing
io/mem).
However, does 'building a kernel without
on GENERIC to provide the defaults for the configuration,
and then tweak to add/remove particular options or devices. I've found
this to be a more reliable way to track changing branches, as I don't have
to notice when the details of GENERIC (and now DEFAULTS) changes: I get
new device drivers when
options INVARIANT_SUPPORT
nooptions WITNESS
nooptions WITNESS_SKIP_SPIN
If I include GENERIC can I comment out the following?
#cpuI486_CPU
#cpuI586_CPU
Does this make any difference? I have always done this out of habit.
would it become
nocpu I486_CPU ?
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 04:39:30PM -0500, Ken Menzel wrote:
...
If I include GENERIC can I comment out the following?
#cpuI486_CPU
#cpuI586_CPU
Well, it's your (copy of) the file; I suppose you can do whatever you
want to with it. :-)
Does this make any
Ken Menzel wrote:
options INVARIANT_SUPPORT
nooptions WITNESS
nooptions WITNESS_SKIP_SPIN
If I include GENERIC can I comment out the following?
#cpuI486_CPU
#cpuI586_CPU
Does this make any difference? I have always done this out of habit.
would it become
On 03/11/2005, at 9:09 AM, David Wolfskill wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 04:39:30PM -0500, Ken Menzel wrote:
...
If I include GENERIC can I comment out the following?
#cpuI486_CPU
#cpuI586_CPU
Well, it's your (copy of) the file; I suppose you can do whatever you
Kris Kennaway wrote:
You've clearly never spent much time on the FreeBSD
support forums, where every few days someone posts
for help
1) with an error caused by removing one of those
Do not remove this! lines, and
2) for help on getting X working when they forgot
to add /dev/io and
I've seen that 'GENERIC' file has been modified, moving some lines to
'DEFAULTS':
device isa
device mem # Memory and kernel memory devices
device io # I/O device
Why?
What does it mean? Should we include 'DEFAULTS' in our
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 10:12:01AM +0200, Danny Braniss wrote:
i agree 100%, i hate wizardy/black-magic, and this 'fix' falls in that
class. Why was a 5ton hammer used to fix non existing problem?
a small comment like 'you better keep these lines to make X happy'
would have sufficed.
You've
You've clearly never spent much time on the FreeBSD support forums,
where every few days someone posts for help
1) with an error caused by removing one of those Do not remove this!
lines, and
2) for help on getting X working when they forgot to add /dev/io and
/dev/mem to their kernel.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 10:46:37AM +0200, Danny Braniss wrote:
You've clearly never spent much time on the FreeBSD support forums,
where every few days someone posts for help
1) with an error caused by removing one of those Do not remove this!
lines, and
2) for help on getting X
[...]
Many users who build custom kernels do not build modules, since they
want to compile everything they (think they) need into the kernel
statically.
you probably know many scenarios that i - thankfully - am no
aware of, but by creating the magic DEFAULTS file the problem
still exits! What
At 11:18 AM +0200 2005-10-31, Danny Braniss wrote:
you probably know many scenarios that i - thankfully - am no
aware of, but by creating the magic DEFAULTS file the problem
still exits! What will prevent from Joe Shootmyfoot to comment out
the lines in DEFAULTS?
chflags schg
At 11:18 AM +0200 2005-10-31, Danny Braniss wrote:
you probably know many scenarios that i - thankfully - am no
aware of, but by creating the magic DEFAULTS file the problem
still exits! What will prevent from Joe Shootmyfoot to comment out
the lines in DEFAULTS?
chflags
At 12:01 PM +0200 2005-10-31, Danny Braniss wrote:
you probably know many scenarios that i - thankfully - am no
aware of, but by creating the magic DEFAULTS file the problem
still exits! What will prevent from Joe Shootmyfoot to comment out
the lines in DEFAULTS?
chflags
i agree 100%, i hate wizardy/black-magic, and this 'fix' falls in that
class. Why was a 5ton hammer used to fix non existing problem?
a small comment like 'you better keep these lines to make X happy'
would have sufficed.
You've clearly never spent much time on the FreeBSD support forums,
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 03:46:56PM -0800, Pete Slagle wrote:
i agree 100%, i hate wizardy/black-magic, and this 'fix' falls in that
class. Why was a 5ton hammer used to fix non existing problem?
a small comment like 'you better keep these lines to make X happy'
would have sufficed.
You've
On 10/31/05, Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The future direction is that FreeBSD will continue to be friendly to
novice users while still affording power users the control that they
seek. This feature is not going to be a dumping ground of dubious
and secret options that are impossible
Hi,
I've seen that 'GENERIC' file has been modified, moving some lines to
'DEFAULTS':
device isa
device mem # Memory and kernel memory devices
device io # I/O device
Why?
What does it mean? Should we include 'DEFAULTS' in our customized
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 11:36:46AM +0100, Cristiano Deana wrote:
Hi,
I've seen that 'GENERIC' file has been modified, moving some lines to
'DEFAULTS':
device isa
device mem # Memory and kernel memory devices
device io # I/O device
On Sun, 2005-10-30 at 11:36 +0100, Cristiano Deana wrote:
Hi,
I've seen that 'GENERIC' file has been modified, moving some lines to
'DEFAULTS':
device isa
device mem # Memory and kernel memory devices
device io # I/O device
'.
No action is necessary.
Maybe just an explanation into 'GENERIC' or 'DEFAULTS'.
Remember that we had for years Do not remove 'device isa' from
kernel! and now it disappears. :)
Thank you again.
--
Cris, member of G.U.F.I
Italian FreeBSD User Group
http://www.gufi.org
on 30.10.2005 11:36 Uhr Cristiano Deana said the following:
Hi,
I've seen that 'GENERIC' file has been modified, moving some lines to
'DEFAULTS':
device isa
device mem # Memory and kernel memory devices
device io # I/O device
Why?
On Sun, 2005-10-30 at 12:04 +0100, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
In that case, how do we remove io or mem so that they get in as kld at boot
time ?
With the nodevice directive.
--
Massimo.run();
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
I've seen that 'GENERIC' file has been modified, moving some lines to
'DEFAULTS':
device isa
device mem # Memory and kernel memory devices
device io # I/O device
Why?
What does it mean? Should we include 'DEFAULTS' in our customized
Hi all!
Since the amount of files goes up,
there is a chance to mess something
with the best in mind. Personaly, I
like simple style of making new
kernel. Defaults? OK if works well,
without complaints for people, who
need nothing more than necessary.
What's about compat options for
clean install
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 03:22:09PM -0800, Pete Slagle wrote:
I've seen that 'GENERIC' file has been modified, moving some lines to
'DEFAULTS':
device isa
device mem # Memory and kernel memory devices
device io # I/O device
Why?
40 matches
Mail list logo
