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
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
2005/11/1, Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The future direction is that FreeBSD will continue to be friendly to
novice users while still affording power users the control that they
seek.
Scott, that's right.
but: we can have our personal way to shoot in the foot, we can use
big, BIG, advice
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 Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Rob wrote:
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,
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
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
Thank you , Kris.
It's included by DEFAULT.
The point of a DEFAULTS file is that to contain things that are used
by DEFAULT, including those which are mandatory.
As I thought, but how? I didn't see any include in GENERIC or any
modify in Makefile.
I think it should be written in
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?
30 matches
Mail list logo
