Is it just me, or does anyone else perceive a marked increase in
cantankerosity on this list, lately?  What is it, phase of the moon,
lack of a release, perceived focus on what some may see as quite unimportant
issues, touchy build system, what?

[what, me complain? :)]

On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:

# On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 11:06:45PM -0500, Todd Vierling wrote:
# > They're in GENERIC for a reason:  those are "generic" configurations meant
# > to run with nearly all optional components enabled.  The same argument could
#
# Did I say "in GENERIC"?  No, I didn't.  I said "all of our example
# configurations", which is pretty much the case.  Why take issue with
# something I didn't actually say?

Because, Thor, you implied GENERIC (as well as the OTHER sample
configurations) in your statement.  Todd's mistake was an honest one --
it's quite easy to read into it exactly as he did.

# > (This is really a matter of differing brain wavelengths further into this
# > thread.  My response was meant to address your initial comment that "the
# > impact of COMPAT_<number> should be in a FAQ", implying that somehow
#
# I made no such comment, whether initial or otherwise.  Would you mind
# actually reading what I write before responding to it, in the future?

Here, again, it's easy to read that you had implied this, given the
context of the thread and the direction we'll have to take if^H^Hwhen we
completely eliminate brk()/sbrk() as system calls and relegate them as
library calls to emulation code via mmap().  This is probably the first
(eventual) COMPAT_* option that's actually going to affect the code path
to quite this extent in quite some time, at least to my uneducated eye.

# Thor

				--*greywolf;
--
NetBSD: The choice of hundreds worldwide.