On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 04:43:17PM +0000, Eduardo Horvath wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>
> > I've found that the difficulty of understanding config(5) is due to its
> > flexibility; it can do one thing in many ways. You can define a collection
> > of sources with define, defflag, device, defpseudo{,dev}, devfs. OTOH you
> > can only write dependency on attributes (define). Another example is, you
> > can write interface with define, device, defpseudodev.
> >
> > I'd propose to make a rule to simplify things (at the cost of a little
> > redundancy of config(5) files).
>
> Allright. I have to ask:
>
> If the plan is to go to a dynamically probed system with loadable modules,
> why keep config around at all? It's only useful for custom kernels. Why
> is it useful to give config a facelift instead of doing away with it
> entirely?
config(5) files carry information on what source file to build, under
what conditions as well as information about drivers and relationships
between devices. Why would you do away with it entirely? All that
information will have to be stored somewhere anyway.
--
Quentin Garnier - cube%cubidou.net@localhost - cube%NetBSD.org@localhost
"See the look on my face from staying too long in one place
[...] every time the morning breaks I know I'm closer to falling"
KT Tunstall, Saving My Face, Drastic Fantastic, 2007.
Attachment:
pgpXjv1t9BAsd.pgp
Description: PGP signature