On Fri, 15.01.2010 at 19:58:57 +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2010-Jan-14 20:12:24 +0000, "Robert N. M. Watson" <rwat...@freebsd.org>
> wrote:
> >- Desktop/server users who want their system to work without any
> > special tuning or magic, and likely feel the comments they put in
> > configuration files are important
>
> As far as I'm concerned, the most critical bit of my kernel config file
> is the $Header...$ comment - which lets me extract the remainder of the
> file from my CVS repository. I don't currently use includes (because
> most of my config files have roots pre-dating the include directive).
>
> I find it a PITA that INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE _doesn't_ include comments
> (or at least my $Header$ line) by default.
Seriously, is that the only "comment" people care about? I really have a
hard time coming up with *important* stuff that people put in config's
comments and then somehow lose the connection between comment and
running kernel.
> IMO, it would be useful to have an "include this literal string in the
> kernel" config directive. This would allow config file version control
> information to be embedded without needing the comments. And that would
> resolve the issue of embedding fully expanded details of all included
> files without the hassle of keeping the comments around.
Ok, this I can understand. We could then call this directive something
... um like ident perhaps? :)
Seems like all that people want to do is simply:
cpu i386
ident SERVER
descr "$Id: foo,v"
That shouldn't be too hard? FWIW I think it is more important to have a
way to recreate the current running kernel than to get a
verbatim/expanded copy of all config files used to create it in the
first place.
Just my two cents,
Uli
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
