Re: Candidates for inclusion in DEFAULTS

From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander_at_Leidinger.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 19:52:06 +0100
Matt Emmerton <matt_at_gsicomp.on.ca> wrote:

> Just looking through the kernel code, and there are many strong warnings (in
> NOTES, GENERIC and various bits of code) that strongly advise *not* removing
> COMPAT_43 from the kernel config.
>
> In fact, doing so causes lots of things to break, especially the
> Linuxulator.
>
> That said, would COMPAT_43 (and possibly COMPAT_FREEBSD4 and
> COMPAT_FREEBSD5) be good candidates to put in DEFAULTS -- at least on i386?

There's a PR with a patch which removes the dependency from the linuxolator.
My intend is to give it a try (and commit it). Maybe this week, if time
permits.

Regarding the FreeBSD compatibility options: if you don't run software from
those releases, you don't need them. Entries in DEFAULTS are supposed to
render any kernel useless if removed. So I don't think the FreeBSD
compatibility options are good candidates for DEFAULTS.

Bye,
Alexander.

-- 
http://www.Leidinger.net  Alexander _at_ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org     netchild _at_ FreeBSD.org  : PGP ID = 72077137
I believe that professional wrestling is clean
and everything else in the world is fixed.
		-- Frank Deford, sports writer
Received on Mon Jan 02 2006 - 17:52:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:50 UTC