hi,

> > - introduce "default-options".
> >   (an alternative might be just to allow "options" in one_def.)
> 
> 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.

> 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.

> 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@. :)

YAMAMOTO Takashi