Subject: Re: Use of opt_ headers
To: Peter Seebach <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Quentin Garnier <email@example.com>
Date: 08/28/2006 13:42:26
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 04:21:53AM -0500, Peter Seebach wrote:
> What is the compelling reason to write two dozen or more different files,
> rather than having a single "options.h" header that everyone includes?
Because if one changes, you get to recompile everything. Thanks, but
no. config(1) takes very good care at not touching a file if it hasn't
> Are we worried about dependency checking on changing options, or what? I
> haven't built a kernel in years in which I changed any options without a =
> clean; does anyone do that still? (I'm not saying they don't; I've just =
> seen it.)
Well, if you have that many cycles to spare...
Quentin Garnier - firstname.lastname@example.org - cube@NetBSD.org
"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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----