Re: May be include in GENERIC option INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE?

In message: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0912122342110.61723_at_fledge.watson.org>
            Robert Watson <rwatson_at_FreeBSD.org> writes:
: 
: On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Doug Barton wrote:
: 
: > Alex Keda wrote:
: >> For those who have recently engaged in FreeBSD, and inexperienced
: >> managers who have inherited a server "by inheritance" is often the
: >> question arises - where to find the configuration file in which to
: >> compile your kernel? (Of course, a file by that time there =))
: >
: > I actually thought that was already done, but I see now that it's
: > not. I would like to see this as well, any objections?
: 
: I'd say go for it.  It's not perfect, but given modern memory sizes
: for systems using GENERIC, I'd say the administrative benefit is well
: worth it. People doing embeddded will cut it as well as lots of other
: stuff in GENERIC anyway.

I didn't see this discussion until now, since it was burried in
-current.

I'd say go ahead and add it to GENERIC (and I'll be happy do do that
now that I've backed it out of DEFAULTS).

But it does not belong in DEFAULTS.  That file is not for this sort of
thing.  That file is only for those options required to build a
bootable kernel, or for those options that went from being NO_FOO to
FOO and/or from being standard to being optional (like device mem).
There's also a desire to eliminate this file entirely when something
better comes along.

I'm planning on including standard files so that we can easily add
things in one place instead of many that will be better than DEFAULTS
in the next month or so.  I've worked through several prototypes, none
of which have been suitable to share with the wider world, but each
one better than the one before...  I'll post to arch_at_ when I have a
proposal.

Warner