On 21-Jul-2004 Devon H. O'Dell wrote:
I'm sure this will become another bikeshed, so I suggest whoever came up with the idea to put up or shut up. People are interested in solutions, not suggestions.
Agreed. And the original proponent of the idea was me. I just wanted to see if there was any willingness to even consider something like this before I went and did a lot of work for nothing.
Seems the general concensus is that most people are OK with the idea, depending on the implementation.
I'll be quiet now until/unless I can actually come up with something. :-)
If you are looking to improve the current build process, here's an idea someone could implement that would save a lot of people a lot of time...
My biggest annoyance with building the kernel, compared to Linux, is that it insists on building all of the possible kernel modules, even though I only want to build the ones that make sense for my hardware. In Linux, despite the drawbacks of the menu-based config, it is nice being able to easily specify Yes, Module, or No for most options.
The least intrusive approach would probably be to add a second config file (e.g. "MYKERNEL.modules") which would contain only the names of the modules to build in some make-friendly format. You could then modify config(8) to automatically copy this file, if it exists, to the object directory where it would be included by the appropriate Makefile. If no .modules file exists, then it would continue the current behavior of building all possible modules.
-- Jake Hamby _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
