Re: What should be in GENERIC? (was Re: Facilitating binary kernel upgrades)

2005-11-09 Thread John-Mark Gurney
Miguel wrote this message on Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 14:09 -0600: John-Mark Gurney wrote: GENERIC is already so large, that if you want/need a smaller kernel, you're going to rebuild anyways, Since I care about that extra 2megs, I recompiled my own kernel, And the real problem of a big

Re: What should be in GENERIC? (was Re: Facilitating binary kernel upgrades)

2005-11-09 Thread Miguel
John-Mark Gurney wrote: Miguel wrote this message on Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 14:09 -0600: I dont understand exactly why do you have to recompile, unless a new future is needed, like SMP, isnt it?, what harm is doing those extra megs? In the general case, no, you do not need to

Re: What should be in GENERIC? (was Re: Facilitating binary kernel upgrades)

2005-11-09 Thread Colin Percival
Robert Watson wrote: On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Colin Percival wrote: I find this argument hard to accept. The vast majority of FreeBSD users will never need the NFS_ROOT option, and many systems do not even have the hardware for serial or parallel ports, yet those are supported in the GENERIC

What should be in GENERIC? (was Re: Facilitating binary kernel upgrades)

2005-11-08 Thread Colin Percival
Tom Grove wrote: Richard Bejtlich wrote: After speaking with Colin, he mentioned that IPSec, NAT, and disk quotas (enabled via options QUOTA) are the three most popular kernel changes that prevent people from running GENERIC and hence using freebsd-update for binary kernel updates. Can

Re: What should be in GENERIC? (was Re: Facilitating binary kernel upgrades)

2005-11-08 Thread Marian Hettwer
Colin Percival wrote: Tom Grove wrote: Richard Bejtlich wrote: After speaking with Colin, he mentioned that IPSec, NAT, and disk quotas (enabled via options QUOTA) are the three most popular kernel changes that prevent people from running GENERIC and hence using freebsd-update for binary

Re: What should be in GENERIC? (was Re: Facilitating binary kernel upgrades)

2005-11-08 Thread John-Mark Gurney
Colin Percival wrote this message on Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:22 -0800: In deciding what options should go into the GENERIC kernel, I think the question we should be asking is not how many people use this?, but instead would adding this option inconvenience more people than it would help?.

Re: What should be in GENERIC? (was Re: Facilitating binary kernel upgrades)

2005-11-08 Thread Miguel
John-Mark Gurney wrote: GENERIC is already so large, that if you want/need a smaller kernel, you're going to rebuild anyways, Since I care about that extra 2megs, I recompiled my own kernel, And the real problem of a big kernel is I dont understand exactly why do you have to

Re: What should be in GENERIC? (was Re: Facilitating binary kernel upgrades)

2005-11-08 Thread Robert Watson
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Colin Percival wrote: Tom Grove wrote: Richard Bejtlich wrote: After speaking with Colin, he mentioned that IPSec, NAT, and disk quotas (enabled via options QUOTA) are the three most popular kernel changes that prevent people from running GENERIC and hence using