Subject: Re: making an existing feature optional (Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch)
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <>
From: Quentin Garnier <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 08/06/2005 17:37:39
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 12:10:46AM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> hi,
> > > - introduce "default-options".
> > >   (an alternative might be just to allow "options" in one_def.)
> >=20
> > I don't like this.  I think that the complete separation between the
> > descriptive step and the operational step of the configuration is the
> > one thing that makes sense in config(1).
> config(1) already allows "makeoptions" in both steps.


> and IMO default values belongs to the descriptive step.

I don't agree, but I certainly won't fight over this anyway.
> > and leave room for other stuff (like, say, INET).
> do you mean making INET default?
> i don't think we can flip default without breaking existing config files.

With "no options INET" compiling one full month every five years, I
wouldn't worry much.  But that was an example of something we might want,
some day, when world peace is achieved and all things like that...

> > Yes, people who write their config files down to the "machine ..." line
> > will have to edit their config file, but I'm rather confident those read
> > current-users and UPDATING.
> i'd say such people should read source-changes@. :)

You can read source-changes@ and miss stuff for a lot of reasons.

Quentin Garnier - -
"When I find the controls, I'll go where I like, I'll know where I want
to be, but maybe for now I'll stay right here on a silent sea."
KT Tunstall, Silent Sea, Eye to the Telescope, 2004.

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (NetBSD)