re: config(5) break down

[matthew green <mrg%eterna.com.au@localhost>]

   To manage dependency nicely.
   
   When a module A dpend on B, you write "define A: B", where B has to be
   already "define"'ed in the current syntax.  We're managing such
   ordering "by hand" in sys/conf/files.  By splitting files & use
   "include", we don't need to manage such a mess by hand.  David Holland
   already understood this:
   
           http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2010/03/11/msg007633.html
   
   So we have already agreed that split has "some" benefit.  The point
   is, my split+include way doesn't need any syntax change.

the above mail doesn't agree with splitting files* for every
device.  it agrees that some better ideas might be useful.

i like your ideas about using "define" better, and being more
clear about dependancies, but why do you need so many files?
(given the above url, i like the "(2)" option for the split.)

i have no idea how splitting them makes the ordering no longer
"by hand".  the ordering is still explicitly done by hand, it
is just done in a bunch of files now, using more lines than
would previously be required.  eg, instead of all the drivers
in files.pci being how they are today, they each get to have
to "include" all the PCI definitions, and other ones.  each
driver / module file will have a large list of "include"s,
all managed by hand.  seems ugly and inefficient to me.
   
   I'm not saying changing syntax is bad.  My complaint is that David
   Holland is suggesting things without understanding the existing
   syntax.  I spent a whole weekend to read sys/conf/files, ioconf.c, and
   module stubs in sys/dev/usb/uaudio.c.  I wasted a whole weekend.  I've
   been wasting more time to convince David Holland who has never
   bothered to understand the existing syntax.

i read this and i look at the devfs thread and i am not sure
if i want to laugh or cry.


.mrg.