On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:17:11PM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 11:04:48AM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: > > > I have the patch changed to use VMNOSWAP... But I will let yamt commit it. > > > > please let me think a little more about a way to avoid negative options. > > I agree that negative options like this are undesirable. As Quenti > suggests, perhaps there's a place we can make "options VMSWAP" be on > by default, and let those few users who need to put "no options > VMSWAP" in their config files, now that we can. Yes, I think that's what makes most sense. > An MI equivalent to the 'include "arch/i386/conf/std.i386"' that > currently appears in the i386 configs, for example. All configs are supposed to include that file, as it contains the mandatory "machine" specification. > I think there's scope for reviewing how several of our sample/base > configs are maintained, especially with the new 'no ..' config syntax. > There are probably some other good examples of almost-always-needed > 'options' that make more sense as an explicit 'no' override. We're still a long way to easy config file inclusions, though. Sometimes I have the feeling config(1) should be rototilled entirely. -- Quentin Garnier - cube%cubidou.net@localhost - cube%NetBSD.org@localhost "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.
Attachment:
pgpAC6S4gefY6.pgp
Description: PGP signature