Candidates for inclusion in DEFAULTS
Alexander at Leidinger.net
Mon Jan 2 10:52:15 PST 2006
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
> 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
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.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
I believe that professional wrestling is clean
and everything else in the world is fixed.
-- Frank Deford, sports writer
More information about the freebsd-current