Subject: Re: COMPAT_AOUT removal
To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/07/2000 17:44:09
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
> Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.firstname.lastname@example.org>
> | While removing it from GENERIC might be ok, if we keep the COMPAT_AOUT
> | code in the kernel, we shoudn't remove it from OPTIONS(4). We should be
> | increasing our documentation, not decreasing it. :-)
> That depends upon whether anyone should really normally be using the
> option or not, and how easy it is to describe its purpose and effects.
I disagree. I've never heard options(4) should be limited to "normally"
used options. Yes, "normally" used ones are more _likely_ to be in there,
but I was not aware that was policy. :-)