Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?

From: M. Warner Losh (imp_at_bsdimp.com)
Date: 07/25/04

  • Next message: Jake Hamby: "Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?" 
    Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 16:01:10 -0600 (MDT)
To: jhamby@anobject.com

    In message: <4101DC69.9030309@anobject.com>
                Jake Hamby <jhamby@anobject.com> writes:
    : Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
    : > On 21-Jul-2004 Devon H. O'Dell wrote:
    : >
    : >
    : >>I'm sure this will become another bikeshed, so I suggest whoever came
    : >>up with the idea to put up or shut up. People are interested in
    : >>solutions, not suggestions.
    : >
    : >
    : > Agreed. And the original proponent of the idea was me. I just wanted
    : > to see if there was any willingness to even consider something like
    : > this before I went and did a lot of work for nothing.
    : >
    : > Seems the general concensus is that most people are OK with the idea,
    : > depending on the implementation.
    : >
    : > I'll be quiet now until/unless I can actually come up with something.
    : > :-)
    :
    : If you are looking to improve the current build process, here's an idea
    : someone could implement that would save a lot of people a lot of time...
    :
    : My biggest annoyance with building the kernel, compared to Linux, is
    : that it insists on building all of the possible kernel modules, even
    : though I only want to build the ones that make sense for my hardware.
    : In Linux, despite the drawbacks of the menu-based config, it is nice
    : being able to easily specify Yes, Module, or No for most options.
    :
    : The least intrusive approach would probably be to add a second config
    : file (e.g. "MYKERNEL.modules") which would contain only the names of the
    : modules to build in some make-friendly format. You could then modify
    : config(8) to automatically copy this file, if it exists, to the object
    : directory where it would be included by the appropriate Makefile. If no
    : .modules file exists, then it would continue the current behavior of
    : building all possible modules.

    What's wrong with adding:

    makeoptions MODULES_OVERRIDE="a b c"

    to your config file? It is already supported.

    Warner

    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Jake Hamby: "Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?"

    Relevant Pages