docs/87445: comments for improvement of handbook/kernelconfig-config.html
blackend at FreeBSD.org
Sat Oct 15 12:37:41 UTC 2005
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 05:58:37AM -0400, Tom Rhodes wrote:
> That is my most hated section of all. Lemmie try to explain my
> peeves with this chapter:
> o It's a major (and I mean MAJOR) nightmare to deal with keeping
> in sync with reality.
> o There are several things with regards to kernel's not fully
> discussed. For instance, look at the differences between
> the way devices are listed for more archs then just i386.
> o This section should discuss some of the basic options which
> effect the building of kernels.
> o This chapter should be merged with cutting edge and upgraded
> to have an upgrading section. I think it's stupid to have
> them separate when many of the aspects criss cross virtually.
> o I HATE HATE HATE the discussion on monolithic/modular. Awhile
> ago (months/years?) it discussed doing a kernel rebuild in
> relation to SunOS kernels. I'm glad that's gone. But in many
> cases you don't need a custom kernel anymore. "rites of passage"
> my butt. Yea, it's something an admin should know, but I
> think the discussion is way out of hand here.
I think you're right. Nowadays building a custom kernel is for:
- experimented (non lazy?) admins/users
- embedded or old hardware
With the amount of RAM in todays boxes, the fact quite everything exist
as a module, the kernelconfig section should be part of cutting-edge.
We should only mention "kldload foo" in various places we talk about
kernel/driver support for a particular feature. One advantage of just
mentioning "kldload foo" is that it's arch/release/whatever independant
(most of time).
> o I'm not dealing well with this 4.X/5.X/6.X stuff. It seems
> that RE@ is going to drop 5.X after 5.5, and 4.X is virtually
> gone. Not from production environments, but a lot of developers
> I *THINK* aren't paying attention to it.
> o Blah. I'm tired.
> I'm also finding myself with an urge to jump back into FreeBSD
> and complete a large project. This, and disposing of the
> FAQ are just two things I'm thinking about. Some day people
> will wake up to some major change in the docs, and the
> FAQ may be gone or at least "quick reading" clean. Or perhaps
> 4.X will be knifed from the handbook. And most likely, the
> only people who will expect it coming will be those that aren't
> going to stand in my way. :)
> : Please don't take that as if it's rude, I'm actually
> joking around with it. Cause I know that if someone
> tried that, well, to core && doceng they'd be explaining.
If you add to the tree the "famous ghost" called "dynamic built FAQ at
the end of each Handbook chapter", no one will object :)
More information about the freebsd-doc