> 
> >> Is it only an oversight that ALTQ_PRIQ is not declared in files.altq?
> 
> I believe that it is.  I have never myself tried to compile the -2.0 
> branch, so I cannot confirm or deny your problem, but it works for me in 
> the -1.6 branch (where ALTQ_PRIQ is included in files.altq).  Why don't 

It is interesting to see that it was there in 1.6 . I looked to the CVS
history and in rev. 1.2 many options were added to the declaration, but
ALTQ_PRIQ (and ALTQ_NOPCC) were removed (by Christos Zoulas, so Cc:ing
him). The log message does not seem to mention why, so this is probably
a mistake.

> you try to add it manually to files.altq to see how it works?  If that 
> fixes it, you should submit a PR for this problem.  If you don't know 
> how, you can ask on the mailing lists.

Well, I'm not sure how to test how it works. I do not use altq, I was
just recompiling a kernel, so I wanted to add ALTQ support, because I
could need it in the future.

> >> Also, is there a reason why ALTQ is not in the GENERIC kernel, not
> >> even in a commented form? Is it still considered experimental?
> 
> This is a good question.  There is (in my opinion) a horrible lack of 
> documentation/help on ALTQ in netbsd.  I'm not sure that its considered 

Yes.

> experimental, since that really implies some kind of active development. 

"Which is not happening" that's what you wanted to say? :-)

>  Probably the developer that put it in doesn't deem it important enough 
> for GENERIC.  The best place to look for help is in the mailing list 
> archives.  Just be careful because some of that information is outdated 

Well, this answers my question :-)
> Module Name:	src
> Committed By:	jdc
> Date:		Wed Jun 30 21:08:45 UTC 2004

> Modified Files:
> src/sys/arch/i386/conf [netbsd-2-0]: GENERIC
> 
> Log Message:
> Pull up revision 1.616 (requested by abs in ticket #567).
> 
> Add (commented out) ALTQ options to all GENERIC-like files

Sorry for the noise, my 2.0_BETA is a bit outdated.

Thanks for your reply.

Bye	Pavel