On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Robert Elz wrote:

>     Date:        Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
>     From:        Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@zembu.com>
>     Message-ID:  <Pine.NEB.4.21.0008071702080.2238-100000@candlekeep.home-net.internetconnect.net>
> 
>   | 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. :-)

Take care,

Bill