Re: [RFC 2] userconf(4): 2nd proposal

[Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>]

On Sat, Nov 04, 2023 at 11:25:01AM +0100, tlaronde%kergis.com@localhost wrote:
> I think that my second proposal is the simplest, allowing not breaking
> existing and introducing extensions without much typing.

This whole thing still makes no sense to me. You can do what you want
with userconf already and this is not a common operation so any simplification
for something that only makes sense (1) for ad hoc testing or (2) encoded
in boot.cfg does not gain us anything for real.

For the real world issue at hand (bugs in kernel drivers that claim the
console but then do not work) either a boot flag (like RB_MD4 on x86)
or what you call "ad hoc mechanism" makes a lot more sense to me.

Of course the bugs in the drivers should be fixed, so this is only a temporary
workaround.

Martin