On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 06:23:49PM +0100, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 04:17:02PM +0100, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> > > Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > - Obviously, defined policy/responsibility to disable these options
> > > > > for release kernels. In fact, if we go this way - then options
> > > > > should be removed from all MD kernel configs and managed in MI
> > > > > src/sys/conf/std.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure this is doable: some ports may want to keep DIAGNOSTIC in
> > > > release branches, while others may want to exclude DIAGNOSTIC from
> > > > some kernels on HEAD (for example because of space constraints).
> > >
> > > Why not? Such ports can still define the option in their configs.
> > > Also,
> >
> > No because you'll then have "already have options `DIAGNOSTIC'" from
> > config.
>
> Yes, that would be an extra headache for release branch (perhaps one
> could make it easier with some config magic). However, expectation
> of release branch is a stable kernel. Why do you want to distribute
> Xen kernel with inconsistent options (vs x86) and against policy?
it's not only about Xen, it's about all kernels for any port which
already have DIAGNOSTIC and want to keep it even for release
(e.g. i386 ALL).
--
Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--
